A workaround is a solution tailored to a specific emergency. It is the preliminary procedure available to the plaintiff in a civil suit that protects him from loss, irreparable injury or waste of property while the trial is ongoing. Some types of interlocutory remedies are injunction, sequestration, arrest, seizure and seizure. The only explanation for the differences between law and justice is to be found in the history and politics of England in the twelfth century, but in practical terms the differences are remarkable. First, juries are not used only in cases. Second, justice is based less on precedent than on the sense that justice must be done. Third, and most importantly, when what is sought by the non-offending party is not money – that is, if there is no adequate remedy – fairness can provide redress. In equity, a person may induce a judge to order the offending party to deliver real property or refrain from doing something they should not do, or to return consideration given by the non-offending party to restore the parties to a pre-contractual status (specific performance, injunction or restitution). Because of their historical origins, monetary damages are often referred to as remedies, while coercive and declaratory remedies are called equitable remedies. Once students understand the basic idea of a particular achievement, they often want to jump into it to resolve almost any breach of contract.
It seems reasonable that the non-offending party could ask a court to simply compel the promisor to do what he promised. However, a certain service is a very limited recourse: it is only possible to sell a single object in case of breach of contract, i.e. a single personal property (the samovar) or land (all real estate is unique). But if the item is not unique, so that the non-infringing party can go out and buy another one, then the action for monetary damages will solve the problem. And a certain service will never be used to force a person to provide services against their will, which would be involuntary servitude. A person may be forced to stop doing what they should not do (injunction), but not be forced to do what they will not do. An expected interestThe interest of a party in a breach of contract, to obtain the benefit of the arrangement by putting him in as good a position as it would have been if there had been no breach. is the advantage for which the promisor has negotiated, and the remedy is to put him in as good a position as he would have been in if the contract had been performed. Legitimate interest compensation for the non-offending party resulting from reliance on the offending party`s performance promise.
is the loss caused by relying on the contract and taking action consistent with the expectation that the other party will honour it; The remedy is a refund that puts the promise back in its position before the conclusion of the contract. The interest of the non-offending party to be brought back to the situation in which it would have found itself if the promises had never been made. Where this is not possible, restitution will eliminate any unjust enrichment. is what returns to the promise any advantage he has granted to the promisor. These interests do not dictate the result according to a rigid formula; The circumstances and nature of the contract will, as usual, play a major role. But in general, the specific benefit is a legal remedy that deals with expected interest, monetary damages for all three interests and, not surprisingly, restitution deals with repayment interest. The distinction between judicial and equitable remedies originally arose because the courts only had the power to grant remedies, while the courts provided equitable remedies to exercise justice in situations where money would not be a sufficient remedy. The courts and the fair courts have merged, but the distinction still has some importance, because in a number of courts a jury trial is granted or denied, depending on whether the remedy sought is legal or fair. If an appeal is filed, the plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial, but this is not the case if equitable relief is sought.
If a party is a victim of fraud, it must act expeditiously to repeal the common law or lose its right and its remedy will be limited to tortious damages. (This issue is discussed in more detail in Section 16.5.7 “Choice of Solutions.”) 3. If an agreement has suffered damage as a result of the non-performance of a sealed promise, whether the promise is contained in a document or is expressly or implicitly stated in the terms of the instrument; Or whether the damage is lump sum or not liquidated, the right recourse is the action of the agreement. There are certain limits or limitations to the availability of damage: you must pass predictability and safety tests. They should, as far as possible, be adequately mitigated. And lump sum damages must be appropriate – not a penalty. In certain situations, a person may lose the right of withdrawal – the power to terminate a contract – if the rights of third parties arise. In some cases, a person is forced to make a choice of remedies: choose one remedy among several, and if one is chosen, the others are no longer available.