Editing Contracts/Unclean hands

{{:Contracts/TOC}}
'''Unclean hands''', sometimes called the '''clean hands doctrine''' or the '''dirty hands doctrine''',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/dirty-hands-doctrine.html |title=dirty hands doctrine definition |publisher=Businessdictionary.com |date= |accessdate=2009-06-19}}</ref> is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/unclean-hands.htm |title=Unclean Hands definition |publisher=Legal-explanations.com |date= |accessdate=2009-06-19}}</ref> The defendant has the [[Legal burden of proof|burden of proof]] to show the plaintiff is not acting in [[good faith]]. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". This is a matter of protocol, characterised by [[A. P. Herbert]] in ''[[Uncommon Law]]'' by his fictional Judge Mildew saying (as Herbert says, "less elegantly"), "A dirty dog will not have justice by the court".<ref>{{cite book|title=Uncommon Law|url=https://archive.org/details/uncommonlawbeing0000herb|url-access=registration|edition=1st|date=1935|publisher=[[Methuen Publishing|Methuen]]|last=Herbert|first=A. P.|authorlink=A. P. Herbert}}</ref>

The clean hands doctrine is used in U.S. patent law to deny equitable or legal relief to a patentee that has engaged in improper conduct, such as using the patent to extend monopoly power beyond the claims of the patent.<ref>See, e.g., ''[[Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co.]]''</ref>

A defendant's unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable [[affirmative defense]]s. In other words, 'unclean hands' can be used offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by the defendant.  Historically, the doctrine of unclean hands can be traced as far back as the [[Fourth Council of the Lateran|Fourth Lateran Council]].

==See also==
* ''[[In pari delicto]]''
* [[Laches (equity)]]
* [[Pot calling the kettle black]]
* ''[[Tu quoque]]''

==References==
{{Reflist}}
Latest revision		Your text
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{:Contracts/TOC~~}}{{Breadcrumb\|parent_page=Contracts\|alias={{SUBPAGENAME}}~~}}		{{:Contracts/TOC}}
	'''Unclean hands''', sometimes called the '''clean hands doctrine''' or the '''dirty hands doctrine''',<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/dirty-hands-doctrine.html \|title=dirty hands doctrine definition \|publisher=Businessdictionary.com \|date= \|accessdate=2009-06-19}}</ref> is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/unclean-hands.htm \|title=Unclean Hands definition \|publisher=Legal-explanations.com \|date= \|accessdate=2009-06-19}}</ref> The defendant has the [[Legal burden of proof\|burden of proof]] to show the plaintiff is not acting in [[good faith]]. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". This is a matter of protocol, characterised by [[A. P. Herbert]] in ''[[Uncommon Law]]'' by his fictional Judge Mildew saying (as Herbert says, "less elegantly"), "A dirty dog will not have justice by the court".<ref>{{cite book\|title=Uncommon Law\|url=https://archive.org/details/uncommonlawbeing0000herb\|url-access=registration\|edition=1st\|date=1935\|publisher=[[Methuen Publishing\|Methuen]]\|last=Herbert\|first=A. P.\|authorlink=A. P. Herbert}}</ref>		'''Unclean hands''', sometimes called the '''clean hands doctrine''' or the '''dirty hands doctrine''',<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/dirty-hands-doctrine.html \|title=dirty hands doctrine definition \|publisher=Businessdictionary.com \|date= \|accessdate=2009-06-19}}</ref> is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/unclean-hands.htm \|title=Unclean Hands definition \|publisher=Legal-explanations.com \|date= \|accessdate=2009-06-19}}</ref> The defendant has the [[Legal burden of proof\|burden of proof]] to show the plaintiff is not acting in [[good faith]]. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". This is a matter of protocol, characterised by [[A. P. Herbert]] in ''[[Uncommon Law]]'' by his fictional Judge Mildew saying (as Herbert says, "less elegantly"), "A dirty dog will not have justice by the court".<ref>{{cite book\|title=Uncommon Law\|url=https://archive.org/details/uncommonlawbeing0000herb\|url-access=registration\|edition=1st\|date=1935\|publisher=[[Methuen Publishing\|Methuen]]\|last=Herbert\|first=A. P.\|authorlink=A. P. Herbert}}</ref>