-
What are the types of injunctions?
- Preliminary injunction
- Permanent injunction (negative injunction/mandatory injunction)
-
Preliminary injunction
Designed to preserve the status quo until trial.
- Requires:
- 1) Substantial likelihood of success on the merits
- 2) Substantial threat of irreparable damage or injury
- 3) Balancing of hardships
- 4) Granting the injunction would serve the public interest
-
What must a plaintiff show in order to get a preliminary injunction?
- Substantial likelihood of success on the merits
- Substantial threat of irreparable damage or injury
- Balancing of hardships
- Granting the injunction would serve the public interest
-
Permanent injunction
Issued after trial on the merits.
- Requires:
- 1) Inadequate legal remedy
- 2) Property rights requirement
- 3) Feasibility of enforcement
- 4) Balancing of hardships
-
What must a plaintiff show in order to get a permanent injunction?
- After trial on the merits
- Inadequate legal remedy
- Property rights requirement -- SOME property right
- Feasibility of enforcement
- Balancing of hardships
-
How can a plaintiff show that there is an inaequate legal remedy (permanent injunction)?
- Money damages may be speculative
- The injury may be irreparable
- Money damages might lead to a multiplicity of actions
- When land is involved, equity is much more ready to step in than when you are dealing with something else
-
What is required to satisfy the property rights requirement (permanent injunction)?
Injunction is allowed as long as SOME property right is involved.
-
Negative injunction
- Order the defendant to stop doing something
- No feasibility of enforcement issues
-
Mandatory injunction
- Order the defendant to do something
- Raises feasibility of enforement issues
-
When is enforcement of a mandatory injunction not feasible?
- Skill and judgment are called for
- A series of acts over a period of time
- Out-of-state act
-
Balancing of hardships (permanent injunction)
Equity will only act when the benefit to the plaintiff outweighs the hardship to the defendant.
-
What are defenses to a permanent injunction?
- Unclean hands - the unclean hands must relate to the same transaction involved in the litigation
- Laches - equitable equivalent of a statute of limitations
- Free speech (defamastion, false light, publication of private facts)
-
Unclean hands
- Defense to a permennt injunction
- The unclean hands must relate to the same transaction involved in the litigation
-
Laches
- Defense to a permanent injunction
- Equitable equivalent of a statute of limitations
-
What must a plaintiff show in order to get the remedy of specific performance?
- There must be a valid contract
- The contract's conditions must have been satisfied
- Inadequate legal remedy
- Feasibility of enforcement
-
What is required to satisfy the condition that the contract's conditions must have been satisfied (specific performance)?
Plaintiff performed them, or
Plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to perform but plaintiff has valid excuse for not performing.
- Land sale contract with defect in title
- -Plaintiff is seller -- plaintiff cannot get specific performance unless the defect is minor
- -Plaintiff is buyer -- courts will grant specific performance in all situations with a reduction of the purchase price because of the defect
-
How can you get specific performance in a land sale contract dispute over a defect in title?
- Plaintiff is seller -- plaintiff cannot get specific performance unless the defect is minor
- Plaintiff is buyer -- courts will grant specific performance in all situations with a reduction of the purchase price because of the defect
-
What is required to satisfy the condition that there is no adequate legal remedy (specific performance)?
Uniqueness
Land is always unique -- both parties can get specific performance of a land sale contract.
- Personal property is not unique unless:
- 1) The chattel is rare or one of a kind
- 2) The chattel has personal significance
- 3) The chattel is in short supply as tested at the time of litigation
-
Is land sufficiently unique to satisfy the requirement that there is no adequate legal remedy (for specific performance)?
Yes, land is always unique.
-
When is personal property sufficiently unique to satisfy the requirement that there is no adequate legal remedy (for specific performance)?
- Chattel is rare or one of a kind
- Chattel has personal significance
- Chattel is in short supply as tested at the time of the litigation
-
Will courts order specific performance on out-of-state litigants?
Yes, even though this may raise a question as to the feasibility of enforcement.
-
Will courts order specific performance on personal service contracts?
No, because of feasibility of enforcement.
-
What are defenses to specific performance?
- Unconscionability -- watch for timing, needs to be unconscionable at the time of formation
- Statute of Frauds (exception -- part performance) (note -- cannot be as consistent with a lease as with land sale)
-
Will courts enforce negative covenants not to compete?
- Must protect a legitimate interest
- Must be reasonable in time and geographical scope
-
When will courts grant a rescission of a contract?
-
Mutual mistake (rescission)
- Mistake on both sides of the contract as to a material fact
- Rescission will be granted
- Collateral issues: quality, desirability, or fitness
-
Unilateral mistake (rescission)
Mistake by only one of the parties to the contract.
Rescission will typically not be granted.
- Three exceptions:
- 1) Rescission is appropriate if the other party knew or should have known of the other's mistake
- 2) Rescission is appropriate where the non-mistake party has not taken any steps in reliance on the contract
- 3) Rescission is appropriate where the mistake party's hardship would outweigh the non-mistake party's expectations
-
What are the 3 exceptions to the rule that courts will not order rescision because of a mistake by one of the parties to the contract (unilateral mistake)?
- Other party knew or should have known of the other's mistake
- Non-mistake party has not taken any steps in reliance on the contract
- Mistake party's hardship would outweigh the non-mistake party's expectations
-
When will a court grant rescision on the basis of misrepresentation?
- Innocent, or merely negligent - reliance must have been reasonable
- Intentional - only that she actually relied
-
What are defenses to rescision on the basis of misrepresentation?
- All normal equity defenses
- Plaintiff negligence is NOT a defense
-
Is plaintiff negligence a defense to rescision on the basis of misrepresentation?
No.
-
Reformation
Valid contract which the parties put in writing and the writing did not conform to the orginal deal.
- Elements:
- 1) A valid contract
- Grounds for reformation:
- 1) Misrepresentation - reform the writing to the original intent of the parties
- 2) Mutual mistake - reform to what the parties thought
- 3) Unilateral - no reformation unless the non-mistake party knew or should have known of the mistake
-
What are the grounds for reformation of a valid contract?
- Misrepresentation - reform the writing to the original intent of the parties
- Mutual mistake - reform to what the parties thought
- Unilateral - no reformation unless the non-mistake party knew or should have known of the mistake
-
Will courts order reformation of a valid contract where there was a unilateral mistake?
Only if the non-mistake party knew or should have known of the mistake.
-
What are the defenses to reformation?
- General equitable defenses
- Plaintiff negligence is not a defense
- Parole evidence rule is not a defense
-
Is plaintiff negligence a defense to reformation of a valid contract?
No.
-
Is the parole evidence rule a defense to reformation of a valid contract?
No.
|
|
