|
Equitable Remedies
Equitable remedies are judicial remedies developed by courts of equity from about the time of Henry VIII to provide more flexible responses to changing social conditions than was possible in precedent-based common law. Equitable remedies were granted by the Court of Chancery in England, and remain available today in most common law jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions, legal and equitable remedies have been merged and a single court can issue either, or both, remedies. Despite widespread judicial merger, the distinction between equitable and legal remedies remains relevant in a number of significant instances. Notably, the United States Constitution's Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial in civil cases over $20 to cases "at common law". Equity is said to operate on the conscience of the defendant, so an equitable remedy is always directed at a particular person, and that person's knowledge, state of mind and motives may be relevant to whether a remedy should be ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Remedies
A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual. In common law jurisdictions and mixed civil-common law jurisdictions, the law of remedies distinguishes between a legal remedy (e.g. a specific amount of monetary damages) and an equitable remedy (e.g. injunctive relief or specific performance). Another type of remedy available in these systems is declaratory relief, where a court determines the rights of the parties to action without awarding damages or ordering equitable relief. The type of legal remedies to be applied in specific cases depend on the nature of the wrongful act and its liability. In the legal system of the United States, there exists a traditional form of judicial remedies that serve ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Constructive Trusts
A constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed by a court to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding a legal property right which they should not possess due to unjust enrichment or interference, or due to a breach of fiduciary duty, which is intercausative with unjust enrichment and/or property interference. It is a type of implied trust (''i.e.'', it is created by conduct, not explicitly by a settlor). Definition Constructive trusts are imposed by operation of law. They are also referred to as implied trusts. They are not subject to formality requirements. Unlike a resulting trust, which also arises by operation of law, a constructive trust does not give effect to the imputed/presumed intention of the parties. Instead, constructive trusts are largely said to be triggered by unconscionability. This is the idea that a defendant would be unjustly enriched if they were allowed to keep property for themselves ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Contract
A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties that creates, defines, and governs mutual rights and obligations between them. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to transfer any of those at a future date. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or rescission. Contract law, the field of the law of obligations concerned with contracts, is based on the principle that agreements must be honoured. Contract law, like other areas of private law, varies between jurisdictions. The various systems of contract law can broadly be split between common law jurisdictions, civil law jurisdictions, and mixed law jurisdictions which combine elements of both common and civil law. Common law jurisdictions typically require contracts to include consideration in order to be valid, whereas civil and most mixed law jurisdictions solely require a meeting of the mind ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Goff & Jones
''Goff and Jones on the Law of Unjust Enrichment'' (formerly ''Goff and Jones on the Law of Restitution'', usually simply abbreviated to ''Goff & Jones'') is the leading authoritative English law textbook on restitution and unjust enrichment. First written by Robert Goff and Gareth Jones, it is presently in its tenth edition. It is published by Sweet & Maxwell and forms part of the Common Law Library. As a textbook it is somewhat remarkable in that although the first edition was published in 1966, it was not until 1991 (25 years later) that the House of Lords formally recognised unjust enrichment as a separate branch of jurisprudence. It is notable that a number of the key decisions in the field have been handed down by Lord Goff, and often reflect the analysis which has previously expressed academically in ''Goff & Jones''. For example, Goff's judgment in '' Barclays Bank Ltd v W J Simms, Son and Cooke (Southern) Ltd'' 9801 QB 677 was described as "the ''Donoghue v Steven ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Injunctions
An injunction is a legal and equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. ("The court of appeals ... has exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of...."); ("Limit on injunctive relief'); ''Jennings v. Rodriguez'', 583 U.S. ___, ___138 S.Ct. 830 851 (2018); '' Wheaton College v. Burwell''134 S.Ct. 2806 2810-11 (2014) ("Under our precedents, an injunction is appropriate only if (1) it is necessary or appropriate in aid of our jurisdiction, and (2) the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear.") (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); '' Lux v. Rodrigues''561 U.S. 1306 1308 (2010); ''Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko''534 U.S. 61 74 (2001) (stating that "injunctive relief has long been recognized as the proper means for preventing entities from acting unconstitutionally."); '' Nken v. Holder''556 U.S. 418(2009); see also ''Alli v. Dec ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Unjust Enrichment
In laws of equity, unjust enrichment occurs when one person is enriched at the expense of another in circumstances that the law sees as unjust. Where an individual is unjustly enriched, the law imposes an obligation upon the recipient to make restitution, subject to defences such as change of position. Liability for an unjust (or unjustified) enrichment arises irrespective of wrongdoing on the part of the recipient. The concept of unjust enrichment can be traced to Roman law and the maxim that "no one should be benefited at another's expense": ''nemo locupletari potest aliena iactura'' or ''nemo locupletari debet cum aliena iactura''. The law of unjust enrichment is closely related to, but not co-extensive with, the law of restitution. The law of restitution is the law of gain-based recovery. It is wider than the law of unjust enrichment. Restitution for unjust enrichment is a subset of the law of restitution in the same way that compensation for breach of contract is a subset of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Equitable Tracing
Tracing is a legal process, not a remedy, by which a claimant demonstrates what has happened to his/her property, identifies its proceeds and those persons who have handled or received them, and asks the court to award a proprietary remedy in respect of the property, or an asset substituted for the original property or its proceeds. Tracing allows transmission of legal claims from the original assets to either the proceeds of sale of the assets or new substituted assets. Tracing ordinarily facilitates an equitable remedy, and is subject to the usual limitations and bars on equitable remedies in common law countries. In many common law countries, there are two concurrent processes, tracing at common law and tracing in equity. However, because the right to trace at common law is so circumscribed, the equitable process is almost universally relied upon, as equitable tracing can be performed into a mixed fund. Illustrations "Tracing is thus neither a claim nor a remedy. It is merel ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Interpleader
Interpleader is a civil procedure device that allows a plaintiff or a defendant to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute. An interpleader action originates when the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another, but does not know to whom the property should be transferred. It is often used to resolve disputes arising under insurance contracts. Terminology and overview In an interpleader action, the party initiating the litigation, normally the plaintiff, is termed the ''Stakeholder (law), stakeholder''. The money or other property in controversy is called the ''res'' (a Latin word meaning object or thing). All defendants having a possible interest in the subject matter of the case are called ''claimants''. In some jurisdictions, the plaintiff is referred to as the ''plaintiff-in-interpleader'' and each claimant a ''claimant-in-interpleader''. An interpleader proceeding has two stages. The first stage determines if the stakeholder i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fiduciary
A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties (person or group of persons). Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person. One party, for example, a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to another party, who, for example, has entrusted funds to the fiduciary for safekeeping or investment. Likewise, financial advisers, financial planners, and asset managers, including managers of pension plans, endowments, and other tax-exempt assets, are considered fiduciaries under applicable statutes and laws. In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice, or protection is sought in some matter... In such a relation, good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trust ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Damages
At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages. Compensatory damages are further categorized into special damages, which are economic losses such as loss of earnings, property damage and medical expenses, and general damages, which are non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and emotional distress. Rather than being compensatory, at common law damages may instead be nominal, contemptuous or exemplary. History Among the Saxons, a monetary value called a ''weregild'' was assigned to every human being and every piece of property in the Salic Code. If property was stolen or someone was injured or killed, the guilty person had to pay the wer ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Commonwealth Law Reports
The Commonwealth Law Reports (CLR) () are the authorised reports of decisions of the High Court of Australia. The Commonwealth Law Reports are published by the Lawbook Company, a division of Thomson Reuters. James Merralls AM QC was the editor of the Reports from 1969 until his death in 2016. The current editors are Christopher Horan KC and Paul Vout KC. Each reported judgment includes a headnote written by an expert reporter (by convention, a practising barrister) which, as an authorised report, has been approved by the High Court. The current reporters are as follows: * Roshan Chaile * Ella Delany * Bora Kaplan * Rudi Kruse * James McComish * William Newland * Alistair Pound SC * Daniel Reynolds * Alexander Solomon-Bridge * Julia Wang * Michael Wells * Jillian Williams * Radhika Withana The headnotes include a summary of counsel's legal arguments. The Reports also include tables of cases reported, affirmed, reversed, overruled, applied or judicially commented on and cited ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
