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

Recent Cases: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court in Slip and Fall

In a decision issued on March 18, 2015 , a New York appeals court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old boy. He was injured when he slipped and fell on "loose and broken pieces of asphalt" as he was running towards an ice cream truck near an Ikea store in Brooklyn. There were two interesting things about the decision. First, like many slip and fall cases, the case turned on constructive notice--how long was the loose/broken asphalt on the ground before the accident so that the defendants should have seen it and corrected the dangerous condition? The appeals court said the defendants failed to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area, so they did not establish lack of constructive notice. The more interesting thing is that apparently the boy told staff at the hospital where he was taken that he tripped over his shoelaces. The defendants found this in the hospital records and basically said, "Ha! He di...
Post a Comment
Read more

Know Your Rights: New York's Consumer Protection Statute

Under New York law, there are several ways that consumers can recover damages (money) or other relief against businesses that ripped them off, deceived them, or otherwise treated them improperly. One of these ways is New York's Consumer Protection Statute (General Business Law § 349). Under GBL §349, a consumer can sue a business if he or she can show that the subject act or practice (1) was consumer-oriented; (2) was misleading in a material way; and (3) the consumer suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act. If successful, a consumer can recover their actual damages (money they lost), their reasonable attorney fees, and "treble" (triple) damages up to $1,000 (if the business acted willfully and knowingly in deceiving the consumer). The $1,000 cap on treble damages needs to be eliminated. It is no deterrent to businesses behaving badly. 
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Developments: Lawsuit Against School District for a Bus Monitor Abusing a Special Needs Child

The parents of a child "who suffers from severe mental disabilities" sued the Beacon City School District, in Dutchess County, alleging that a bus monitor physically and mentally abused their child. The parents sued the School District for, among other things, assault, battery, and negligent supervision. The case went through the fact-finding phase (called "discovery"), and the School District made a motion to dismiss at least some of the claims. The motion was granted, but an appeals court reversed the lower court.  The appeals court first noted that  [s]chools have a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision and  [t]he standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school's supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same...
Post a Comment
Read more