The insulted party must also be considered to be totally free of any guilt in the litigation. Often referred to as the “clean hands” principle, it can be used to deny a fair discharge if the insulted party did not act in good faith or made unnecessarily attempted to remedy this situation. As in the case of enforcement reviews, the traditional rule for certain benefits asks whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the court does not allocate a defined benefit, which, in the absence of a defined benefit, would not be sufficient to alleviate the financial burden. Under English law, the remedy must, in principle, be done in this case, unless another remedy is “more appropriate”. [8] Thank you, Vance. I have the impression that the Chancellor has suggested more than the reasonable position you are describing. Could he have extrapolated to a more general assertion that, whatever the private will of the parties, the review of the application of the fair remedies law is difficult to complete? Perhaps to a greater extent than a federal court would be willing to accept? Traditionally, equity would only provide a specific benefit for contracts with Chattels, for which the goods were unique, such as art, inheritance, etc. The reason was that the aggrieved party, along with the fungible goods, held a welfare of damages for non-compliance with the other party. Some of Equitable Relief`s clauses simply refer to “irreparable harm” and others use “damage for which damages would be an insufficient remedy,” the definition of irreparable Harm. To avoid uncertainty, just use both. An appropriate exemption is a legal remedy that requires a party to act or refrain from performing a particular act in cases where remedies are not considered a sufficient reimbursement.

Adequate compensation is different from a right such as financial compensation and is used to take or prevent action in cases where an appeal would not constitute an appropriate reimbursement of the offence or other offence. This application often takes the form of a court injunction that forces the appeal by sanctioning non-compliance with civil or criminal sanctions. Another aspect of this clause, which can be negotiated, is the language of “any violation of that agreement” – the only thing for which a fair remedy is a breach of confidentiality itself. There are probably many other clauses within the NDA, the violation of which would not jeopardize all the activities of the unveiling party and could not result in a loss at all to the unveiling party.