Untitled spreadsheet - Sheet1 Flashcards
Where there is a right there is a remedy
Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy - ubi jus ibi remedium
What is the scope of ubi jus ibi remedium
The maxim essentially establishes the jurisdiction of the court of Chancery to prevent failure of justice. It must not be understood to embrace every moral wrong. Where the common law confers a right, it gives a remedy or right of action for interference with or infringement of that right. It is applicable to rights which are suitable for judicial enforcement but which were not enforced at common law due to some technical defect.
Limitations of ubi jus ibi remedium
- Only breaches of legal rights and equitable rights may be addressed.
- Where the infringement or wrong can be addressed by the common law courts and jurisdiction, equity may not be applied.
- Does not protect any man who due to his own negligence destroyed or allowed to be destroyed evidence in his own favor or waived his right to an equitable remedy.
Equity follows the law
Equity will not allow a remedy that is contrary to law. The rules of law and equity do not oppose each other but are in turn subservient to each other. in no case do they contradict or overturn the other.
Stickland v. Aldridge
Equity follows the law. Where a person died intestate in common law, who owned an estate, leaving sons and daughters, the eldest son was entitled to the whole of the land to the exclusion of the younger brothers and sisters. This was unfair, but no relief granted by court. Here it was held that if the eldest son had induced his father not to make a will by promising him that he would divide up the property between his siblings, then the court of equity will intervene because even though equity recognizes legal principles, the promise added an element of conscience. Testator must act in reliance upon the trustee’s acceptance. Provision of law cannot be misused by creating a breach of trust and contract.
Case where equity acts in analogy to those rules where analogy exists
R gives his property to M, for beneficiary H. H’s interest though equitable will be governed by a legal rule and not by an equitable one. If the trustee M by a mistake of fact pays someone a particular amount from the trust property, H can file an action and will have to do so within the limitation period. H’s interest even though equitable, cannot be equitably imposed, because there are specific laws regarding this situation.
Equity and limitation in India
India has not recognized the distinction between legal and equitable interests. Equity rules cannot override specific provisions of law. Every suit in India has to be brought within the limitation period, no judge can create an exception to this or prolong the time limit or stop the rule from taking effect on the basis of equity.
He who seeks equity must do equity
Anyone who seeks equitable relief must be prepared to act fairly to their adversary and submit to their right. Usually, a court cannot impose terms on the party suing, the law must take its course. But the chancery court was different in that while giving equitable relief it imposed terms on the applicant that was agreeable to the conscience because equity acts on the conscience of the parties.
Applications of He who seeks equity must do equity
Illegal Loans
Doctrine of Election
Notice to redeem Mortgage
Wife’s equity to settlement
Equitable Estoppel
Restitution of benefits on cancellation of transaction
Set off
Illegal Loans
Once B borrowed money from M by mortgaging certain securities. M was an unregistered moneylender. Under the moneylender’s act, the contract was illegal and therefore void. B sued M for return of the securities, the court refused to make such an order except upon the terms that B should repay the money which had been advanced to him. B must do equity and repay the debt to enjoy equitable remedies.
Doctrine of Election
One cannot both approbate and reprobate. Where A gives his property to B and in the same instrument purports to give B’s property to C, B will be put to an election. He can either retain his property and reject the benefit granted to him by the donor, or he can accept the benefit and cause his property to be gifted by A to C. He cannot both keep the property and the benefit.
Consolidation of Mortgage
I didn’t understand
Notice to redeem mortgage
Notice to a mortgagee to redeem one’s mortgage is an equitable right of the mortgagor.
Wife’s equity to a settlement
Wife could not hold any property independently, legal effect of the marriage was to merge her property, moneys, goods and chattels with the husband. EQUITY Courts saw injustice in this and recognized the wife’s equity to a settlement, the wife’s right to separate estate in certain circumstances, and by putting fetters on the wife’s right to alienate that separate property. (no longer relevant)
Equitable estoppel
Concept began in common law, equity courts expanded to cover any representation of existing facts which was acted upon by a person before whom it was made and the maker of the representation is not allowed to go back on it.
Essential for application of estoppel
- That a representation intended to induce a conduct on part of the person to whom the representation was made
- Resulting from the representation, an act was made by the person to whom it was made
- that there arose detriment to such person from the act
Gujarat State Financial Corp. v. Lotus Hotels
Corporation sanctioned a loan to Lotus hotels for construction of a hotel by creating an equitable mortgage. Lotus relying on this proceeded to execute the project, but subsequently the corporation changed its mind and refused to disburse it. The court ruled that the corporation was bound by its promise.
Restitution of benefits on cancellation of transaction
Return the benefits of a contract which was voidable. if A induces B by fraud to enter into a contract and when the same is set aside at the instance of B, B has to restore any benefit he received from A and to make compensation to A.
TOPA and he who seeks equity must do equity
Section 35 of TOPA, doctrine of election
He who comes into equity must come with clean hands
ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Equity demands good faith, conscience and good faith not only from the defendant but also the plaintiff.
Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel Vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
Petitioner removed from service on ground of proved misconduct, he got employment in another service by stating that he had voluntarily left the previous service because of transfer. Even though such conduct did not fall under specified misconduct, the second employer removed him from service. Labour Court, GHC and the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, persons seeking relief must come to the court with clean hands.
Limitation of ex turpi causa
The maxim doesn’t require that the general or total conduct of the plaintiff is to be considered. “equity doesn’t demand that its suitors have led blameless lives”
