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".
In response to the city's claim that Thomas had "unclean hands" in regard to his alleged role in harassing employees and his other rights as an alderman, Austin Fax, the attorney representing ...
Wrenn filed a lawsuit in September 2003 with the U.S. District Court asking for the cancellation of BSA's federal trademark registrations, claiming among other things that, "The BSA is guilty of unclean hands resulting from the BSA's violation of the antitrust laws of the United States, including, without limitation, obtaining registrations involving generic or descriptive terms through fraud ...
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.
A Los Angeles judge ruled to dismiss lawsuit against Lady Gaga, brought by the woman who dated one of the dognapper's dads. The judge ruled she had "unclean hands" when attempting to cash in on ...
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.
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]
holds that, solely because of the fraud which was practiced on the Patent Office and in litigation on the patent, the owner of the patent is to be amerced and in effect fined for the benefit of the other party to the suit, although that other comes with unclean hands and stands adjudged a party to a conspiracy to benefit over a period of twelve ...