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".
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 doctrine of nondelegation is a principle that one branch of government, typically Congress, cannot delegate powers or responsibilities apportioned to it by the constitution to another branch of government. [21] Similarly, if someone is elected to public office, the responsibilities of said position cannot be contracted to a different party.
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]
In common-law legal systems, laches (/ ˈ l æ tʃ ɪ z / LAT-chiz, / ˈ l eɪ-/; Law French: remissness, dilatoriness, from Old French: laschesse) is a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, particularly in regard to equity.
Unclean hands 1; Accord and ... It is a legal term and the strict definition varies by ... Undue influence originated from English common-law in a doctrine from 1617. ...
Unclean gloves, bare hands noted by restaurant inspectors in Hilton Head and Bluffton. Lisa Wilson. December 12, 2023 at 2:23 PM. Kondor83/Getty Images.
The Court concluded that the patentee's attempt to extend its monopoly power beyond the rights that the patent statute conferred on it was inequitable, and because of the patentee's "unclean hands", the court, as a court of equity, would not grant it relief. [8] [13] [14] In explaining its ruling, the Court said: