Skip to main content

Know Your Rights: Money/Remedy at Law vs. Equitable Relief

When you bring a lawsuit (or some other kind of action or proceeding) in court, you are asking the court to give you some kind of relief.

Generally speaking, that relief is either money (called "damages" or "money damages" or a "remedy at law") or equitable relief. Everyone knows what money is. What is "equitable relief"? It is relief other than money.

Some examples of equitable relief (or "relief at equity" or an "equitable remedy") are:

  •  specific performance of a contract -- you entered into a contract with another party for them to do something; they failed to do it; you sue them to force them to perform as they agreed to in the contract
  • an injunction -- you bring an action to make another party do something or stop doing something
  • rescission of contract -- you entered into a contract; you believe there is a problem with the contract, or the other side committed fraud, or the other side can't perform its obligations, etc.; this remedy cancels the contract
Years ago (as in many years ago), when the settlers brought with them English courts and laws, there were courts of equity and courts of law, and you had to bring your dispute in the right court. Most courts in this country have gotten rid of this distinction, and courts have jurisdiction over both legal and equitable claims.

The distinction between remedies at law and remedies at equity can still be important. For instance, when you are seeking equitable relief, you have to allege in your lawsuit that "there is no adequate remedy at law". Also, historically, if you seek equitable relief in an action, you are not entitled to a jury trial, only a "bench trial". Meaning there is no jury, the judge acts as the jury. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Employment Contract Enforceable Against Employer Even Though Not Signed

The plaintiff is a modeling scout. Defendant modeling agency decided to hire him as a modeling scout for $190,000/year, plus bonuses. An employment contract was prepared. One provision of the contact said that if the plaintiff were ever fired without cause, he would be entitled to 6-months severance ($95,000). The contract also said that it could be signed in counterparts. The plaintiff signed the contract on August 18, 2015 and emailed his signature to the modeling agency. One of the agency's board members emailed back, saying "Welcome aboard. We'll countersign over the next few days." But no one from the agency ever signed the contract. Nevertheless, the plaintiff began working as a modeling scout, and the agency paid him according to the contract. But after six months, the agency decided to terminate him, without cause. The agency then refused to pay him the $95,000 severance, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit for breach of contract. The modeling agency m...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Contractor Entitled to be Paid For Extra Work Not Part of Original Contract

On September 12, 2013, the Town of Kent (Putnam County) entered into a contract with a contractor to build a sewer.  During construction, certain "conditions that were unexpected and unanticipated" arose, requiring the contractor to do "extra" work--things beyond the scope of work of the original contract. (The appeals court doesn't detail what this extra work was.) The contractor performed the extra work, totaling around $380,000 in additional costs. For reasons not stated by the appeals court, the Town refused to pay for this extra work, and the contractor eventually sued the Town in May, 2015.  The contractor moved for summary judgment in the lower court (a kind of mini-trial on paper), and the court awarded judgment in favor of the contractor for the $380,000.  The Town appealed, but the appeals court sided with the contractor, saying that even though this "extra" work was not within the scope of work of the original contract, the con...
Post a Comment
Read more