Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine, unclean hands doctrine, or 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".
The unclean hands cases of Keystone Driller v. General Excavator, Hazel-Atlas v. Hartford, and Precision v. Automotive formed the basis for the doctrine of inequitable conduct that developed and evolved over time. [2]
Unclean hands. In addition to defenses against prosecution and liability, a defendant may also raise a defense of justification – such as self-defense and defense of others or defense of property. In English law, one could raise the argument of a contramandatum, which was an argument that the plaintiff had no cause for complaint. [3]
When deciding whether to give an injunction, and deciding what its scope should be, courts give special attention to questions of fairness and good faith. One manifestation of this is that injunctions are subject to equitable defenses, such as laches and unclean hands. [6] Injunctions are given in many different kinds of cases.
Here contractual remedies cannot be enforced by a court on a defendant if it is manifest that the subject matter of the contract is either directly or by implication, contrary to public policy or in contradiction with any existing law or custom. A somewhat related concept in the law of contracts is the equitable defense of unclean hands.
The decision upholds a 2020 district court ruling that found Mayes had “unclean hands,” a legal term that means one party deceived the other when entering into a contract.
Issues noted by inspectors included an employee cutting and handling ready-to-eat fruit with bare hands; beans cooked the night before and still in the process of cooling; the lack of a date ...
The problem of dirty hands concerns whether political leaders and those in similar positions can ever be justified in committing even gravely immoral actions when "dirtying their hands" in this way is necessary for realizing some important moral or political end, such as the preservation of a community's continued existence or the prevention of imminent societal catastrophe.