20MaximsofEquity

Roleofmaxims
Maximsofequityarenotarigidsetofrules,butare,rather,generalprincipleswhichcan
bedeviatedfrominspecificcases.[2]SnellsEquity,anEnglishtreatise,takestheview
thattheMaximsdonotcoverthewholeground,andmoreovertheyoverlap,onemaxim
containsbyimplicationwhatbelongstoanother.Indeeditwouldnotbedifficultto
reduceallundertwo:EquitywillnotsufferawrongtobewithoutaremedyandEquity
actsontheperson.[3]
ListofMaxims
1Equityseesthatasdonewhatoughttobedone
2Equitywillnotsufferawrongtobewithoutaremedy
3Equitydelightsinequality
4Onewhoseeksequitymustdoequity
5Equityaidsthevigilant,notthosewhoslumberontheirrights
6Equityimputesanintenttofulfillanobligation
7Equityactsinpersonamorpersons
8Equityabhorsaforfeiture
9Equitydoesnotrequireanidlegesture
10Hewhocomesintoequitymustcomewithcleanhands
11Equitydelightstodojusticeandnotbyhalves
12Equitywilltakejurisdictiontoavoidamultiplicityofsuits
13Equityfollowsthelaw
14Equitywillnotaidavolunteer
15Whereequitiesareequal,thelawwillprevail
16Betweenequalequitiesthefirstinorderoftimeshallprevail
17Equitywillnotcompleteanimperfectgift
18Equitywillnotallowastatutetobeusedasacloakforfraud
19Equitywillnotallowatrusttofailforwantofatrustee
20Equityregardsthebeneficiaryasthetrueowner
ListofMaxims
1.Equityseesthatasdonewhatoughttobedone
Thismaximmeansthatwhenindividualsarerequired,bytheiragreementsorbylaw,to
performsomeactoflegalsignificance,equitywillregardthatactashavingbeendoneas
itoughttohavebeendone,evenbeforeithasactuallyhappened.Thismakespossiblethe
legalphenomenonofequitableconversion.Sometimesthisisphrasedasequityregards
asdonewhatshouldhavebeendone.

Theconsequencesofthismaxim,andofequitableconversion,aresignificantintheir
bearingontheriskoflossintransactions.Whenpartiesenteracontractforasaleofreal
property,thebuyerisdeemedtohaveobtainedanequitablerightthatbecomesalegal
rightonlyafterthedealiscompleted.
Duetohisequitableinterestintheoutcomeofthetransaction,thebuyerwhosuffersa
breachmaybeentitledtotheequitableremedyofspecificperformance(althoughnot
always,seebelow).Ifheissuccessfulinseekingaremedyatlaw,heisentitledtothe
valueofthepropertyatthetimeofbreachregardlessofwhetherithasappreciatedor
depreciated.
Thefactthatthebuyermaybeforcedtosufferadepreciationinthevalueoftheproperty
meansthathebearstheriskoflossif,forexample,theimprovementsonthepropertyhe
boughtburndownwhileheisstillinescrow.
Problemsmaysometimesarisebecause,throughsomelapseoromission,insurance
coverageisnotinforceatthetimeaclaimismade.Ifthepolicyholderhasclearlybeenat
faultinthisconnection,because,forexample,hehasnotpaidpremiumswhenheshould
have,thenitwillnormallybequitereasonableforaninsurertodeclinetomeettheclaim.
However,itgetsmoredifficultifthepolicyholderisnomoreatfaultthantheinsurer.
Thefairsolutioninthecircumstancesmaybearrivedatbyapplyingtheprinciplethat
equityregardsthatasdonethatoughttobedone.Inotherwords,whatwouldtheposition
havebeenifwhatshouldhavebeendonehadbeendone?
Thus,inonecase,premiumsonalifeinsurancepolicywereoverdue.Theinsurersletter
tothepolicyholderwarninghimofthisfactwasneverreceivedbythepolicyholder,who
diedshortlyafterthepolicyconsequentlylapsed.Itwasclearthatifthenoticehadbeen
receivedbythepolicyholder,heorhiswifewouldhavetakenstepstoensurethepolicy
continuedinforce,becausethepolicyholderwasterminallyillatthetimeandthe
coverageprovidedbythepolicywassomethinghiswifewasplainlygoingtorequirein
theforeseeablefuture.Sincethepolicyholderwouldhavebeenfullyentitledtopaythe
outstandingpremiumatthatstage,regardlessofhisphysicalcondition,theinsurer(with
somepersuasionfromtheBureau)agreedthatthemattershouldbedealtwithasifthe
policyholderhaddoneso.Inotherwords,hiswidowwasentitledtothesumassuredless
theoutstandingpremium.Inothersimilarcases,however,ithasnotbeenpossibleto
followthesameprinciplebecausetherehasnotbeensufficientlyclearevidencethatthe
policywouldhavebeenrenewed.
Anotherillustrationoftheapplicationofthisequitableprinciplewasinconnectionwith
motorvehicleinsurance.Apolicyholderwasprovidedwithcoverageonthebasisthatshe
wasentitledtoanoclaimsdiscountfromherpreviousinsurer.Confirmationtothis
effectfromthepreviousinsurerwasrequired.Whenthatwasnotforthcoming,her
coveragewascancelledbythebrokerswhohadissuedtheinitialcoveragenote.Thiswas
donewithoutreferencetotheinsurerconcernedwhosenormalpracticeinsuch
circumstanceswouldhavebeentomaintaincoverageandtorequirepaymentofthefull

premiumuntilproofofthenoclaimsdiscountwasforthcoming.Suchproofwas
eventuallyobtainedbythepolicyholder,butonlyaftershehadbeeninvolvedinan
accidentafterthecancellationbythebrokersofthepolicy.Hereagain,thefairoutcome
wastolookatwhatwouldhavehappenediftheinsurersnormalpracticehadbeen
followed.Insuchcircumstances,thepolicyholderwouldplainlyhavestillhadapolicyat
thetimeoftheaccident.Theinsureritselfhadnotactedincorrectlyatanystage.
However,inthecircumstances,itwasequitableforittomeettheclaim.
2.Equitywillnotsufferawrongtobewithoutaremedy
Whenseekinganequitablerelief,theonethathasbeenwrongedhasthestrongerhand.
Thestrongerhandistheonethathasthecapacitytoaskforalegalremedy(judicial
relief).Inequity,thisformofremedyisusuallyoneofspecificperformanceoran
injunction(injunctiverelief).Thesearesuperiorremediestothoseadministeredat
commonlawsuchasdamages.TheLatinlegalmaximisubijusibiremedium(where
thereisaright,theremustbearemedy),sometimescitedasubijusibiremediam.
Themaximisnecessarilysubordinatetopositiveprinciplesandcannotbeappliedeither
tosubvertestablishedrulesoflawortogivethecourtsajurisdictionhithertounknown,
anditisonlyinageneralnotinaliteralsensethatthemaximhasforce.
CaselawdealingwithprincipleofthismaximatlawincludeAshbyvWhite

[4]
and
Bivensv.SixUnknownNamedAgents.[5]Theapplicationofthisprincipleatlawwaskey
inthedecisionofMarburyv.Madison,[6]whereinitwasnecessarytoestablishthat
MarburyhadarighttohiscommissioninthefirstplaceinorderforChiefJustice
Marshalltomakehismorewiderangingdecision.
3.Equitydelightsinequality
Wheretwopersonshaveanequalright,thepropertywillbedividedequally.Thusequity
willpresumejointownerstobetenantsincommonunlessthepartieshaveexpressly
agreedotherwise.Equityalsofavourspartition,ifrequested,ofjointlyheldproperty.
4.Onewhoseeksequitymustdoequity
Toreceiveequitablerelief,thepetitioningpartymustbewillingtocompleteallofits
ownobligationsaswell.Theapplicanttoacourtofequityisjustasmuchsubjecttothe
powerofthatcourtasthedefendant.Thismaximmayalsooverlapwiththecleanhands
maxim(seebelow).
5.Equityaidsthevigilant,notthosewhoslumberontheirrights
Vigilantibusnondormientibusaequitassubvenit.
Apersonwhohasbeenwrongedmustactrelativelyswiftlytopreservetheirrights.

Otherwise,theyareguiltyoflaches,anuntowarddelayinlitigationwiththepresumed
intentofdenyingclaims.Thisdiffersfromastatuteoflimitations,inthatadelayis
particularizedtoindividualsituations,ratherthanageneralprescribedlegalamountof
time.Inaddition,evenwherealimitationperiodhasnotyetrun,lachesmaystilloccur.
TheequitableruleoflachesandacquiescencewasfirstintroducedinChiefYoungDede
v.AfricanAssociationLtd[7]

Alternatives:
Delaydefeatsequity
Equityaidsthevigilant,notthosewhosleepontheirrights
6.Equityimputesanintenttofulfillanobligation
Generallyspeaking,nearperformanceofageneralobligationwillbetreatedassufficient
unlessthelawrequiresperfectperformance,suchasintheexerciseofanoption.Text
writersgiveanexampleofadebtorleavingalegacytohiscreditorequaltoorgreater
thanhisobligation.Equityregardssuchagiftasperformanceoftheobligationsothe
creditorcannotclaimboththelegacyandpaymentofthedebt.
7.Equityactsinpersonamorpersons
InEngland,therewasadistinctiondrawnbetweenthejurisdictionofthelawcourtsand
thatofthechancerycourt.Courtsoflawhadjurisdictionoverpropertyaswellaspersons
andtheircoercivepoweraroseoutoftheirabilitytoadjustownershiprights.Courtsof
equityhadpoweroverpersons.Theircoercivepowerarosefromtheability,onauthority
ofthecrown,toholdaviolatorincontempt,andtakeawayhisorherfreedom(ormoney)
untilheorshepurgedhimselforherselfofhisorhercontumaciousbehavior.This
distinctionhelpedpreserveaseparationofpowersbetweenthetwocourts.
Nevertheless,courtsofequityalsodevelopedadoctrinethatanapplicantmustasserta
propertyinterest.Thiswasalimitationontheirownpowertoissuerelief.Thisdoesnot
meanthatthecourtsofequityhadtakenjurisdictionoverproperty.Rather,itmeansthat
theycametorequirethattheapplicantassertarightofsomesignificantsubstanceas
opposedtoaclaimforreliefbasedonaninjurytomereemotionalordignitaryinterests.
8.Equityabhorsaforfeiture
Today,amortgagorreferstohisinterestinthepropertyashisequity.Theoriginofthe
concept,however,wasactuallyamirrorimageofthecurrentpractice.
Atcommonlaw,amortgagewasaconveyanceoftheproperty,withacondition
subsequent,thatifthegrantorpaidthesecuredindebtednesstothegranteeonorbeforea
datecertain(thelawday)thentheconveyancewouldbevoid,otherwisetoremainin
fullforceandeffect.Aswasinevitable,debtorswouldbeunabletopayonthelawday,
andiftheytenderedthedebtafterthetimehadpassed,thecreditorowednodutytogive

thelandback.Sothenthedebtorwouldruntothecourtofequity,pleadthattherewasan
unconscionableforfeitureabouttooccur,andbegthecourttograntanequitabledecree
requiringthelendertosurrenderthepropertyuponpaymentofthesecureddebtwith
interesttodate.Andtheequitycourtsgrantedthesepetitionsquiteregularlyandoften
withoutregardfortheamountoftimethathadlapsedsincethelawdayhadpassed.The
lendercouldinterposeadefenseoflaches,sayingthatsomuchtimehadgoneby(andso
muchimprovementandbettermenthadtakenplace)thatitwouldbeinequitableto
requireundoingthefinalityofthemortgageconveyance.Otherdefenses,including
equitableestoppel,wereusedtobarredemptionaswell.
Thisunsettlingsystemhadanegativeimpactonthewillingnessoflenderstoacceptreal
estateascollateralsecurityforloans.Sincealendercouldnotresellthepropertyuntilit
hadbeeninuncontestedpossessionforyears,orunlessitcouldshowchanged
circumstances,thevalueofrealestatecollateralwassignificantlyimpaired.Impaired,
thatis,untillawyersconcoctedthebillofforeclosure,wherebyamortgageecould
requestadecreethatunlessthemortgagorpaidthedebtbyadatecertain(andafterthe
lawdatesetinthemortgage),themortgagorwouldthereafterbebarredandforeclosedof
allright,titleandequityofredemptioninandtothemortgagedpremises.
Tocompletethecircle,oneneedstounderstandthatwhenamortgagorfailstopayan
installmentwhendue,andthemortgageeacceleratesthemortgage,requiringimmediate
repaymentoftheentiremortgageindebtedness,themortgagordoesnothavearightto
paythepastdueinstallment(s)andhavethemortgagereinstated.InGrafv.Hope
BuildingCorp.,[8]theNewYorkCourtofAppealsobservedthatinsuchacase,there
wasnoforfeiture,onlytheoperationofaclausefaironitsface,towhichthemortgagor
hadfreelyassented.Inthelatter20thCentury,NewYorkslowercourtserodedtheGraf
doctrinetosuchadegreethatitappearsthatitisnolongerthelaw,andthatacourtof
consciencehasthepowertomandatethatadefaultbeexcusedifitisequitabletodoso.
Ofcourse,nowthatthependulumisswingingintheoppositedirection,wecanexpect
courtstoexplainwherethelimitsonthenewlyexpandedequityofredemptionlieandit
isprobablynotacoincidencethatthecasesthathaveerodedGrafv.HopeBuilding
Corp.havebeenaccompaniedbytheriseofarbitrationasameansforenforcing
mortgages.[9]
8.Equitydoesnotrequireanidlegesture
Also:Equitywillnotcompelacourttodoavainanduselessthing.Itwouldbeanidle
gestureforthecourttograntreformationofacontractandthentodenytotheprevailing
partyanopportunitytoperformitasmodified.
9.Hewhocomesintoequitymustcomewithcleanhands
Itisoftenstatedthatonewhocomesintoequitymustcomewithcleanhands(or
alternatively,equitywillnotpermitapartytoprofitbyhisownwrong).Inotherwords,if
youaskforhelpabouttheactionsofsomeoneelsebuthaveactedwrongly,thenyoudo

nothavecleanhandsandyoumaynotreceivethehelpyouseek.Forexample,ifyou
desireyourtenanttovacate,youmusthavenotviolatedthetenantsrights.
However,therequirementofcleanhandsdoesnotmeanthatabadpersoncannot
obtaintheaidofequity.Equitydoesnotdemandthatitssuitorsshallhaveledblameless
lives.[10]Thedefenseofuncleanhandsonlyappliesifthereisanexusbetweenthe
applicantswrongfulactandtherightshewishestoenforce.
Forinstance,inRiggsv.Palmer,[11]amanwhohadkilledhisgrandfathertoreceivehis
inheritancemorequickly(andforfearthathisgrandfathermaychangehiswill)lostall
righttotheinheritance.
InD&CBuildersLtdvRees,[12]asmallbuildingfirmdidsomeworkonthehouseofa
couplenamedRees.Thebillcameto732,ofwhichtheReeshadalreadypaid250.
Whenthebuildersaskedforthebalanceof482,theReesannouncedthattheworkwas
defective,andtheywereonlypreparedtopay300.Asthebuilderswereinserious
financialdifficulties(astheReesknew),theyreluctantlyacceptedthe300in
completionoftheaccount.Thedecisiontoacceptthemoneywouldnotnormallybe
bindingincontractlaw,andafterwardsthebuilderssuedtheReesfortheoutstanding
amount.TheReesclaimedthatthecourtshouldapplythedoctrineofequitableestoppel,
whichcanmakepromisesbindingwhentheywouldnormallynotbe.However,Lord
Denningrefusedtoapplythedoctrine,onthegroundsthattheReeshadtakenunfair
advantageofthebuildersfinancialdifficulties,andthereforehadnotcomewithclean
hands.
10.Equitydelightstodojusticeandnotbyhalves
Whenacourtofequityispresentedwithagoodclaimtoequitablerelief,anditisclear
thattheplaintiffalsosustainedmonetarydamages,thecourtofequityhasjurisdictionto
renderlegalrelief,e.g.,monetarydamages.Henceequitydoesnotstopatgranting
equitablerelief,butgoesontorenderafullandcompletecollectionofremedies.
11.Equitywilltakejurisdictiontoavoidamultiplicityofsuits
Thus,whereacourtofequityhasallthepartiesbeforeit,itwilladjudicateuponallof
therightsofthepartiesconnectedwiththesubjectmatteroftheaction,soastoavoida
multiplicityofsuits.[13]Thisisthebasisfortheproceduresofinterpleader,classaction,
andthemorerarelyusedBillofPeace.
12.Equityfollowsthelaw
Thismaxim,alsoexpressedasAequitassequiturlegemmeansmorefullythatequity
willnotallowaremedythatiscontrarytolaw.
TheCourtofChanceryneverclaimedtooverridethecourtsofcommonlaw.Storystates

wherearule,eitherofthecommonorthestatutelawisdirect,andgovernsthecasewith
allitscircumstances,ortheparticularpoint,acourtofequityisasmuchboundbyitasa
courtoflaw,andcanaslittlejustifyadeparturefromit.[14]AccordingtoEdmund
HenryTurnerSnell,Itisonlywhenthereissomeimportantcircumstancedisregarded
bythecommonlawrulesthatequityinterferes.[15]CardozowroteinhisdissentinGraf
v.HopeBuildingCorporation,254N.Y1at9(1930),Equityworksasasupplementfor
lawanddoesnotsupersedetheprevailinglaw.
Maitlandsays,Weoughtnottothinkofcommonlawandequityasoftworival
systems.[16]Equityhadcomenottodestroythelaw,buttofulfilit.Everyjotand
everytitleoflawwastobeobeyed,butwhenallthishadbeendoneyetsomethingmight
beneedful,somethingthatequitywouldrequire.[17][fullcitationneeded]Thegoalof
lawandequitywasthesamebutduetohistoricalreasontheychoseadifferentpath.
Equityrespectedeverywordoflawandeveryrightatlawbutwherethelawwas
defective,inthosecases,equityprovidesequitablerightandremedies.
13.Equitywillnotaidavolunteer
Equitycannotbeusedtotakebackabenefitthatwasvoluntarilybutmistakenly
conferredwithoutconsultationofthereceiver.Thismaximprotectsthedoctrineof
choice.
Thismaximisveryimportantinrestitution.Restitutiondevelopedasaseriesofwrits
calledspecialassumpsit,whichwerelateradditionsinthecourtsoflaw,andweremore
flexibletoolsofrecovery,basedonequity.Restitutioncouldprovidemeansofrecovery
whenpeoplebestowedbenefitsononeanother(suchasgivingmoneyorproviding
services)accordingtocontractsthatwouldhavebeenlegallyunenforceable.
However,pursuanttotheequitablemaxim,restitutiondoesnotallowavolunteeror
officiousintermeddlertorecover.Avolunteerisnotmerelysomeonewhoacts
selflessly.Inthelegal(andequitable)context,itreferstosomeonewhoprovidesabenefit
regardlessofwhethertherecipientwantsit.Forexample,whensomeonemistakenly
buildsanimprovementonahome,neitherequitynorrestitutionwillallowtheimprover
torecoverfromthehomeowner.
Anexceptiontothismaximcanbeseenincaseswherethedoctrineofestoppelapplies.
14.Whereequitiesareequal,thelawwillprevail
Equitywillprovidenospecificremedieswherethepartiesareequal,orwhereneitherhas
beenwronged.
Thesignificanceofthismaximisthatapplicantstothechancellorsoftendidsobecause
oftheformalpleadingofthelawcourts,andthelackofflexibilitytheyofferedto
litigants.Lawcourtsandlegislature,aslawmakers,throughthelimitsofthesubstantive

lawtheyhadcreated,thusinculcatedacertainstatusquothataffectedprivateconduct,
andprivateorderingofdisputes.Equity,intheory,hadthepowertoalterthatstatusquo,
ignoringthelimitsoflegalrelief,orlegaldefenses.Butcourtsofequitywerehesitantto
doso.Thismaximreflectsthehesitancytoupsetthelegalstatusquo.Ifinsuchacase,
thelawcreatednocauseofaction,equitywouldprovidenorelief;ifthelawdidprovide
relief,thentheapplicantwouldbeobligatedtobringalegal,ratherthanequitableaction.
Thismaximoverlapswiththepreviouslymentionedequityfollowsthelaw.
15.Betweenequalequitiesthefirstinorderoftimeshallprevail
Thismaximoperateswheretherearetwoormorecompetingequitableinterests;when
twoequitiesareequaltheoriginalinterest(i.e.,thefirstintime)willsucceed.
17.Equitywillnotcompleteanimperfectgift
Ifadonorhasmadeanimperfectgift,i.e.lackingtheformalitiesrequiredatcommon
law,equitywillnotassisttheintendeddonee.Thismaximisasubsetofequitywillnot
assistavolunteer.
NotetheexceptioninStrongvBird(1874)LR18Eq315.Ifthedonorappointsthe
intendeddoneeasexecutorofhis/herwill,andthedonorsubsequentlydies,equitywill
perfecttheimperfectgift.
18.Equitywillnotallowastatutetobeusedasacloakforfraud
Equitypreventsapartyfromrelyinguponanabsenceofastatutoryformalityiftodoso
wouldbeunconscionableandunfair.Thiscanoccurinsecrettrustsandalsoconstructive
trustsandsoon.
19.Equitywillnotallowatrusttofailforwantofatrustee
Ifthereisnotrustee,whoeverhaslegaltitletothetrustpropertywillbeconsideredthe
trustee.Otherwise,acourtmayappointatrustee.InIreland,thetrusteemaybeany
administratorofacharitytowhichthetrustisrelated.
20.Equityregardsthebeneficiaryasthetrueowner

SOURCEOFBELOWMATERIALTheFreeDictionaryLINK
maxim
(redirectedfromEquityaidsthevigilant,notthosewhoslumberontheirrights.)Also

foundin:Dictionary/thesaurus,Medical,Encyclopedia,Wikipedia.
(Equity)Maxims
Abroadstatementofprinciple,thetruthandreasonablenessofwhichareselfevident.A
ruleofEquity,thesystemofjusticethatcomplementstheCommonLaw.
MaximswereoriginallyquotedinLatin,andmanyoftheLatinphrasescontinuetobe
familiartolawyersintheearly2000s.Themaximswerenotwrittendowninan
organizedcodeorenactedbylegislatures,buttheyhavebeenhandeddownthrough
generationsofjudges.Asaresult,thewordingofamaximmayvaryfromcasetocase.
Forexample,itisageneralrulethatequitydoesnotaidapartyatfault.Thismaximhas
beenvariouslyexpressed:
Nooneisentitledtotheaidofacourtofequitywhenthataidhasbecomenecessary
throughhisorherownfault.
Equitydoesnotrelieveapersonoftheconsequencesofhisorherowncarelessness.
Acourtofequitywillnotassistapersoninextricatinghimselforherselffromthe
circumstancesthatheorshehascreated.
Equitywillnotgrantrelieffromaselfcreatedhardship.
Theprinciplesofequityandjusticeareuniversalinthecommonlawcourtsoftheworld.
Theyareflexibleprinciplesaimedatachievingjusticeforbothsidesineachcase.No
maximiseverabsolute,butalloftheprinciplesmustbeweighedandfittedtothefactsof
anindividualcontroversy.Aruledoesnotapplywhenitwouldproduceanunfairresult.
Apartycannotinsistthatastricttechnicalitybeenforcedinhisorherfavorwhenit
wouldcreateaninjusticebecauseequitywillinsteadbalancetheinterestsofthedifferent
partiesandtheconvenienceofthepublic.
TheFoundationsofEquity
Twomaximsformtheprimaryfoundationsofequity:Equitywillnotsufferaninjustice
andequityactsinpersonam.Thefirstoftheseexplainsthewholepurposeofequity,and
thesecondhighlightsthepersonalnatureofequity.Equitylooksatthecircumstancesof
theindividualsineachcaseandfashionsaremedythatisdirectedatthepersonofthe
defendantwhomustactaccordinglytoprovidetheplaintiffwiththespecifiedrelief.
Unlessastatuteexpandsthepowersofanequitycourt,itcanmakedecreesthatconcern
propertyonlyindirectly,phrasingthemasdecreesagainstpersons.Itissaidthattheseare
theoldesttwomaximsofequity.Allothersareconsistentwiththem.
Hewhoseeksequitymustdoequity.
ThismaximisnotamoralpersuasionbutanenforceableRuleofLaw.Itdoesnotrequire

everyplaintifftohaveanunblemishedbackgroundinordertoprevail,butthecourtwill
refusetoassistanyonewhoseCauseofActionisfoundedonhisorherownmisconduct
towardtheotherparty.If,forexample,awealthywomantricksherintendedspouseinto
signingaprenuptialagreementgivinghimatoken$500shouldtheyDivorceandafter
marriagesheengagesinaconsistentpatternofconductleadingtoadivorce,acourtcould
refusetoenforcetheagreement.Thismaximreflectsoneaspectoftheprincipleknownas
thecleanhandsdoctrine.
Hewhocomesintoequitymustcomewithcleanhands.
Thismaximbarsreliefforanyoneguiltyofimproperconductinthematterathand.It
operatestopreventanyaffirmativerecoveryforthepersonwithuncleanhands,no
matterhowunfairlythepersonsadversaryhastreatedhimorher.Themaximisthebasis
ofthecleanhandsdoctrine.Itspurposeistoprotecttheintegrityofthecourt.Itdoesnot
disapproveonlyofillegalactsbutwilldenyreliefforbadconductthat,asamatterof
publicpolicy,oughttobediscouraged.Acourtwillaskwhetherthebadconductwas
intentional.Thisruleisnotmeanttopunishcarelessnessoramistake.Itispossiblethat
thewrongfulconductisnotanactbutafailuretoact.Forexample,someonewhohires
anagenttorepresenthimorherandthensitssilentlywhiletheagentmisleadsanother
partyinnegotiationsisasmuchresponsibleforthefalsestatementsasifhehimselfor
sheherselfhadmadethem.
Thebadconductthatiscondemnedbythecleanhandsdoctrinemustbeapartofthe
transactionthatisthesubjectofthelawsuit.Itisnotnecessarythatitactuallyhavehurt
theotherparty.Forexample,equitywillnotrelieveaplaintiffwhowasalsotryingto
evadetaxesordefraudcreditorswithabusinessdeal,evenifthatpersonwascheatedby
theotherpartyinthetransaction.
Equitywillalwaysdeclinereliefincasesinwhichbothpartieshaveschemedto
circumventthelaw.Inoneveryoldcase,arobberfiledabillinequitytoforcehispartner
toaccountforasumofmoney.Whentherealnatureoftheclaimwasdiscovered,thebill
wasdismissedwithcosts,andthelawyerswereheldinContemptofcourtforbringing
suchanaction.ThisfamouscasehascometobecalledTheHighwayman(Everetv.
Williams,Ex.1725,9L.Q.Rev.197),andjudgeshavebeensayingeversincethatthey
willnotsittotakeanaccountbetweentworobbers.
Equityaidsthevigilant,notthosewhoslumberontheirrights.
Thisprinciplerecognizesthatanadversarycanloseevidence,witnesses,andafair
chancetodefendhimselforherselfafterthepassageoftimefromthedatethatthewrong
wascommitted.Ifthedefendantcanshowdisadvantagesbecauseforalongtimeheor
shereliedonthefactthatnolawsuitwouldbestarted,thenthecaseshouldbedismissed
intheinterestsofjustice.Thelawencouragesaspeedyresolutionforeverydispute.It
doesnotfavorthecauseofsomeonewhosuddenlywakesuptoenforcehisorherrights
longafterdiscoveringthattheyexist.Alongunreasonabledelaylikethisiscalled

Laches,anditisadefensetovariousformsofequitablerelief.
Equityfollowsthelaw.
Equitydoesnotreplaceorviolatethelaw,butitbacksitupandsupplementsit.Equity
followsappropriaterulesoflaw,suchastherulesofevidenceandpretrialdiscovery.
Equityactsspecifically.
Thismaximmeansthatapartywhosuesinequitycanrecovertheprecisethingthatheor
sheseeksratherthanmonetarydamagesasasubstituteforit.Thismaximistheremedy
ofSpecificPerformance.
Equitydelightstodojusticeandnotbyhalves.
Itisthepurposeofequitytofindacompleteanswertotheissuesthatareraisedina
lawsuit.Itwillbringinallthenecessaryparties,balancetheirrights,andgiveadecree
thatshouldprotectallofthemagainstfurtherlitigationonthesubject.Whenever
necessary,thecourtwillretainjurisdictioninordertosuperviseenforcementofrelief.
Forexample,alawsuitremainsaliveaslongasanInjunctionisinforce.Eitherpartymay
comebackintocourtandapplyforreconsiderationoftheorderifcircumstanceschange.
CourtsalsoretainjurisdictionwhenChildSupportpaymentsareordered.Theamountcan
bechangedifthechildsneedsrequireanincreaseorifthesupportingparentbecomesill,
unemployed,orretired.
Equitywillnotsufferawrongtobewithoutaremedy.
Itisthetraditionalpurposeofequitytofindsolutionsinlawsuits.Wheremoneywillnot
payfortheinjury,equityhastheauthoritytofindanotherremedy.
Thismaximisarestatementofthebroadlegalprinciple:Ubijus,ibiremedium,Where
thereisaright,thereisaremedy.Themaximisappliedinequityinanorderlyway.It
doesnotmeanthatanythinggoes.Itcallsforthrecognizedremediesforwellestablished
wrongs,wrongsthatareinvasionsofpropertyrightsorpersonalorCivilRightsandthat
thelawconsidersactionable.Acourtwillnotlistentocomplaintsabouteverypetty
annoyanceorimmoralact.
Equityregardssubstanceratherthanform.
Equitywillnotpermitjusticetobewithheldjustbecauseofatechnicality.Formalities
thatfrustratejusticewillbedisregardedandabetterapproachfoundforeachcase.Equity
enforcesthespiritratherthantheletterofthelawalone.
Equityisequality.

Thismaximmeansthatequitywillnotplayfavorites.Forexample,areceiverwhohas
beenappointedtocollecttheassetsofabusinessinfinancialtroublemustusetheincome
topayeverycreditoranequalshareofwhatisowedtohimorher.IfaPensionfundloses
alargeamountofmoneythroughpoorinvestment,theneveryonewhoisentitledto
benefitsmustsufferafairshareoftheloss.Threeadultchildrenofawomanwhoiskilled
inanautoaccidentshouldshareequallyinanymoneythatisrecoveredinaWrongful
Deathactionifthechildrenarethewomansonlysurvivingcloserelatives.
Ajudgewilldepartfromthisprincipleonlyundercompellingcircumstances,buttherule
appliesonlytopartieswhoareonanequalfooting.If,forexample,thewomaninanauto
accidentdiedleavingthreeyoungchildren,thenthemoneythatisrecoveredmightbe
distributedinproportiontoeachchildsage.Ayoungerchildwillhavelosthisorher
motherformoreyearsthananolderbrotherorsister.Also,areceiverwouldhaveto
preferasecuredcreditoroverthosecreditorswhohadnoenforceableinterestina
particularassetofthecompany.Unlessthereisproofthatonepersoninagroupisina
specialposition,thelawwillassumethateachshouldshareequallyinproportiontohisor
hercontributionorloss.
Betweenequalequitiesthelawwillprevail.
Whentwopartieswantthesamethingandthecourtcannotingoodconsciencesaythat
onehasabetterrighttotheitemthantheother,thecourtwillleaveitwhereitis.For
example,acompanythathadbeencollectingsalestaxandturningitovertothestate
governmentfoundthatithadovertaxedandoverpaidby2percent.Itappliedforarefund,
butthestaterefused.Thecourtupheldthestateonthegroundthatthemoneyreally
belongedtothecustomersofthecompany.Sincethecompanyhadnobetterrighttothe
moneythanthestate,thecourtleftthemoneywiththestate.
Betweenequalequitiesthefirstinorderoftimeshallprevail.
Whentwopartieseachhavearighttopossesssomething,thentheonewhoacquiredan
interestfirstshouldprevailinequity.Forexample,amanadvertisesasmallboatforsale
intheclassifiedsectionofthenewspaper.Thefirstpersontoseetheadoffershim$20
lessthantheaskingprice,butthemanacceptsit.Thatpersonsaysheorshewillpickup
theboatandpayforitonSaturday.Meanwhileanotherpersoncomesby,offerstheman
moremoney,andthemantakesit.Whoownstheboat?Contractlawandequityagree
thatthefirstbuyergetstheboat,andthesecondbuyergetshisorhermoneyback.
Equityabhorsaforfeiture.
AForfeitureisatotallossofarightorathingbecauseofthefailuretodosomethingas
required.Atotallossisusuallyaratherstiffpenalty.Unlessapenaltyisreasonablein
relationtotheseriousnessofthefault,itistooharsh.Infairnessandgoodconscience,a
courtofequitywillrefusetopermitanunreasonableforfeiture.Thismaximhas
particularlystrongapplicationtotheownershipofland,aninterestforwhichthelaw

showsgreatrespect.Titletolandshouldneverbelostforatrivialreasonforexample,
adelayofonlyafewdaysinclosingadealtopurchaseahouse.
Generallyequitywillnotinterferewithaforfeiturethatisrequiredbystatute,suchasthe
lossofanairplaneillegallyusedtosmuggledrugsintothecountry.Unlessthestatute
violatesthedueprocessrequirementsoftheConstitution,thepenaltyshouldbeenforced.
Equityabhorsaforfeituredoesnotovercomethemaximthatequityfollowsthelaw.
Neitherwillequitydisregardacontractprovisionthatwasfairlybargained.Generallyit
isassumedthatapartywhodoesmostofwhatisrequiredinabusinesscontractanddoes
itinareasonableway,shouldnotbepenalizedfortheviolationofaminortechnicality.A
contractorwhocompletesworkonabridgeonedaylate,forexample,shouldnotbe
treatedasthoughheorshehadbreachedtheentirecontract.Iftheparties,however,
includeintheiragreementanexpressprovision,suchastimeisoftheessence,thismeans
thatbothpartiesunderstandthatperformanceontimeisessential.Thepartywhofailsto
performontimewouldforfeitallrightsunderthecontract.