Contracts/Unclean hands: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
< Contracts
en>PraeceptorIP
m (Text replacement - "{{:Contracts/TOC}}" to "{{:Contracts/TOC}}{{Breadcrumb|parent_page=Contracts|alias={{SUBPAGENAME}}}}")
 
(23 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{otheruses}}
{{:Contracts/TOC}}{{Breadcrumb|parent_page=Contracts|alias={{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
{{Contract law}}
'''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>
{{Equitable doctrines}}
'''Clean 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 [[Defense (legal)|equitable defense]] in which the [[defendant]] argues that the [[plaintiff]] is not entitled to obtain an [[equitable remedy]] because the plaintiff is acting [[Business ethics|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|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>
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]].
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]].
==Relation to equitable remedies==
[[Equitable remedies]] are generally remedies other than the payment of [[damages]].  This would include such remedies as obtaining an [[injunction]], or requiring [[specific performance]] of a contract.  Before the development of the courts of [[Equity (law)|equity]] in [[England]], such remedies were unavailable in the [[common law]] courts, which were usually under the aegis of the local ducal noble, whereas equity flowed from the circuit-riding presence of the King's Chancellor who brought along his retainers to enforce his orders (in this sense, the development of the equity courts was a political effort by the Crown to further limit the power of local nobles).  Such remedies were developed in the equity courts, as the payment of damages was often not a sufficient remedy for a plaintiff in certain circumstances.  For example, if a landowner polluted the land of the neighbor, the common law [[tort]] of [[nuisance]] would only allow the innocent party to recover damages.  [[Common law]] had no remedy that would force the defendant to stop the [[pollution]].  Equity courts developed such a remedy, the injunction, that provided an ongoing bar to the activity that caused the damage, as well as affirmative orders called mandamus which compelled a directed party to do a certain thing (which the Chancellor could enforce while there). 
Equity courts realized that such extraordinary remedies were only justified in extraordinary cases, and would generally not grant such a remedy where damages were sufficient to make the plaintiff whole.  For example, if a car dealership broke a contract of sale and refused to deliver a particular car, which now could only be obtained for $10,000 more than what the plaintiff was willing to pay, the courts would merely award the plaintiff $10,000 (in addition to the original amount paid, if it had already been paid).  It would not force the dealer to obtain exactly the same car and sell it to the plaintiff.  However, if the subject matter of the sale were unique, such as a particular work of art or real estate, the court would order specific performance and require the sale.
However, equity courts also realized that these extraordinary remedies were subject to abuse.  For example, if a doctor had signed a [[non-compete clause]] with a clinic, the non-compete clause might prevent the doctor from earning a living if he left the clinic's employment.  As such, the court will generally only grant these remedies on the strictest terms.  If there is any indication that the plaintiff seeking the remedy had acted in bad faith, either prior to the commencement of the [[litigation]] or afterwards, the court will generally not grant the remedy.  For example, if the doctor left the clinic because it was involved in insurance [[fraud]], a court would most likely refuse to enforce the non-compete agreement by issuing an injunction, although it might allow the clinic to recover damages if they did lose business to the doctor.  Much of the various limitations, often expressed as "maxims of equity", arose from the sheer physical fact that the Chancellor and his merry band of enforcers would soon be moving on to another locale, and thus equity tended to be careful in allowing access to its powerful remedies and to order only those things which would be quickly or effectively enforced.


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


==References==
==References==
{{Reflist}}
{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Equity (law)]]
[[Category:Equitable defenses]]
[[Category:English legal terms]]
[[Category:Legal doctrines and principles]]

Latest revision as of 21:38, September 26, 2023


Contracts Treatise
Table of Contents
Contracts Outline
Introduction and Definitions
Introduction
Definitions
Elements
Contract law in the United States
Contract formation
Parties
Offer
Acceptance
Intention to Bind
Formal requisites
Mailbox rule
Mirror image rule
Invitation to deal
Firm offer
Consideration
Consent
Implication-in-fact
Collateral contract
Modification
Merger
Uniform Commercial Code
Uniform Commercial Code
Course of dealing
Course of performance
UCC-1 financing statement
Uniform Commercial Code adoption
Defenses against formation
Lack of capacity
Duress
Undue influence
Illusory promise
Statute of frauds
Uncertainty
Non est factum
Contract interpretation
Governing law
Construction and Operation
Parol evidence rule
Contract of adhesion
Integration clause
Contra proferentem
Excuses for non-performance
Mistake
Misrepresentation
Frustration of purpose
Impossibility
Impracticability
Illegality
Unclean hands
Unconscionability
Accord and satisfaction
Rights of third parties
Privity of contract
Assignment
Delegation
Novation
Third-party beneficiary
Performance or Breach
Necessity of performance
Sufficiency of performance
Anticipatory repudiation
Cover
Exclusion clause
Efficient breach
Deviation
Fundamental breach
Termination
Termination
Rescission
Termination and rescission
Abrogation and rescission
Subsequent contract
Termination
Forfeiture
Remedies
Restitution
Specific performance
Liquidated damages
Punitive damages
Quasi-contractual obligations
Estoppel
Quantum meruit
Actions
Actions in General
Parties to Action
Pleading
Evidence
Questions of Law and Fact
Instructions
Trial and Judgment

Unclean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine or the dirty hands doctrine,[1] 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".[2] The defendant has the 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".[3]

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.[4]

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 defenses. 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 Lateran Council.

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ dirty hands doctrine definition,
  2. ↑ Unclean Hands definition,
  3. ↑ Herbert, A. P. Uncommon Law. Methuen.
  4. ↑ See, e.g., Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikilawschool.net/w/index.php?title=Contracts/Unclean_hands&oldid=47227"