Equitable Defences Flashcards
List the equitable defences
Maxims of equity, and defences:
a. Equity aids the vigilant
* idea of delay (laches). Delay that causes prejudice or injustice will lead to denial of equitable remedy, ex. contracts for sale of land - value of property may have changed. AKA – delay may defeat equity.
b. Whoever seeks equity must do equity (clean-hands)
* If a party does not come with a clean-hands the courts will take that into account
* Conduct of parties is relevant when determining whether or not to grant a remedy
* Falcke v Grey - Plaintiff had special knowledge, which was not wrong/illegal per se, but there was no clean hands because he knew it was a lowball offer for the vase. If there is no true clear conscience the court will take that into account.
c. Equality is equity
* Speaks to the idea of balance – effects of granting an order
* Looking at cost to D in proportion to benefit to P if equitable remedy is given. It should still fairly represent the concerns of both parties and not be grossly disproportionate for either D or P.
* Defence: it would be disproportionate
d. Equity will not aid a volunteer: (gratuitous or non-contractual promise)
* Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift or trust, nor create a contract in which no consideration has been provided. AKA – you must have consideration.
o Imperfect Gift: No consideration (equity cannot complete an imperfect gift, even if there is a seal) Riches v Burns
“Equity will not assist a volunteer” equity will not perfect an imperfect gift for trust, nor create a contract in which no consideration has been provided.
* But this may be changing since Mountford v Scott:
* nominal consideration can constitute good consideration and will be sufficient in equity, ex: Mountford v Scott Inadequacy of consideration may be evidence of improvident bargain leading to unconscionable deal and denying specific performance.
e. Equity will not uphold unfairness and hardship
* NO SP if it would impose hardship on defendant Patel v Ali
o Equity will not allow a plaintiff to take advantage of a defendant through things like age, poverty, sickness, infirmity of body or mind, lack of capacity/education, if it would be unconscionable and unfair to do so.
o The type of hardship that triggers the defence must be severe and extreme (Patevl v Ali).
