common law: a court will not grant equitable relief if p has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., unless...
DESCRIPTION
After Pardee & Continental – how can P show irreparable injury? Uniqueness of the property/right threatened or damaged ◦ Personal Integrity – trying to avoid/discontinuing bodily harm considered particularly “unique” ◦ ◦ Constitutional rights – showing of violation is pretty much automatically considered irreparable injury Difficulty in estimating damages resulting from tortious conduct Loss of control over property that is rightfully yoursTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Common Law: A court will not grant equitable relief if P has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., unless P’s injury is irreparable). An inadequate remedy](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052708/5a4d1b667f8b9ab0599b08bd/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Common Law: A court will not grant equitable relief if P has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., unless P’s injury is irreparable).
• An inadequate remedy at law is one where the threatened or damaged property cannot be substantially replaced with the damages that are its value.
• Uniqueness is a common measure of inadequacy of legal remedy.
![Page 2: Common Law: A court will not grant equitable relief if P has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., unless P’s injury is irreparable). An inadequate remedy](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052708/5a4d1b667f8b9ab0599b08bd/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Continental Airlines Continental Airlines and irreparable and irreparable injuryinjury
D (Intra) acquired and sold to travel agents for resale Continental’s discount coupons for flights (despite a non-transferability clause). At some point, despite past practice, Continental told D to stop but D continued selling to travel agents.
• Continental wants an injunction to stop D/Intra’s practice – does Continental have irreparable injury?• Does Continental have any proven monetary injury?
Does that mean there is no harm?
• What harm is there to Continental’s interest?
![Page 3: Common Law: A court will not grant equitable relief if P has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., unless P’s injury is irreparable). An inadequate remedy](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052708/5a4d1b667f8b9ab0599b08bd/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
After After PardeePardee & & ContinentalContinental – how can P – how can P show irreparable injury?show irreparable injury?
Uniqueness of the property/right threatened or damaged◦ Personal Integrity – trying to avoid/discontinuing
bodily harm considered particularly “unique”◦ ◦ Constitutional rights – showing of violation is pretty
much automatically considered irreparable injury
Difficulty in estimating damages resulting from tortious conduct
Loss of control over property that is rightfully yours
![Page 4: Common Law: A court will not grant equitable relief if P has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., unless P’s injury is irreparable). An inadequate remedy](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052708/5a4d1b667f8b9ab0599b08bd/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Some things to keep in mind about Some things to keep in mind about irreparable injury:irreparable injury:
In the context of a permanent injunction, the req’mt is reasonably weak -- can often find a way to argue that damages won’t substantially replace the thing threatened or damaged.◦ But Ps must plead/offer proof of irreparable injury as it
is formally still a requirement. Frame your arguments of harm in terms of irreparable injury.
The irreparable injury requirement is far more important with preliminary injunctions/TROs.
Irreparable injury is a threshold requirement – P must meet the requirement in order to get an injunction. BUT meeting it does not automatically mean that P will get an injunction.
![Page 5: Common Law: A court will not grant equitable relief if P has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., unless P’s injury is irreparable). An inadequate remedy](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052708/5a4d1b667f8b9ab0599b08bd/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The Action (Writ) of Replevin – The Action (Writ) of Replevin – Brook v. Brook v. James CullimoreJames Cullimore
Defined: Legal action to recover personal property in the hands of another.
Process: P traditionally sought a prejudgment writ from the court requiring that D turn over immediate possession of the property to P. P was usually required to post a bond in case it later turned out D was entitled to the property. Sheriff was responsible for executing the writ if issued.
◦ Action/Writ is a form of specific relief (although legal in nature)
◦ Originally the writ was provisional in nature◦ This is a mandatory order (not prohibitory) - doesn’t protect
against threatened dispossession◦ No irreparable injury requirement◦ Turnover effected by sheriff (no contempt power to enforce)
Now more common for statutes to allow contempt to be used
Replevin is currently usually governed by statute.
![Page 6: Common Law: A court will not grant equitable relief if P has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., unless P’s injury is irreparable). An inadequate remedy](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052708/5a4d1b667f8b9ab0599b08bd/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Specific Performance = specialized form of injunction where P asks court to order D to perform her obligations under a contract.• Irreparable injury/adequacy of legal remedy is
threshold issue here too
P (Campbell) wants specific performance of a contract for delivery of carrots. What’s so unique about carrots – i.e., why is the legal remedy inadequate?
When is an item not “substantially replaceable” in the context of a request for specific performance?
![Page 7: Common Law: A court will not grant equitable relief if P has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., unless P’s injury is irreparable). An inadequate remedy](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052708/5a4d1b667f8b9ab0599b08bd/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Common Law: A court will not grant equitable relief if P has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., unless P’s injury is irreparable). An inadequate remedy](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052708/5a4d1b667f8b9ab0599b08bd/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Damages & specific performance are generally interchangeable in terms of providing P his/her expectancy
◦ Damages: Gives P the difference between the market ($90/ton) price & the contract ($30/ton) price.
◦ Specific Performance: Forces D to give P carrots valued by the market at $90/ton for the contract price of $30/ton.
◦ So why were the Wentz brothers so opposed to specific performance in Campbell Soup?
![Page 9: Common Law: A court will not grant equitable relief if P has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., unless P’s injury is irreparable). An inadequate remedy](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052708/5a4d1b667f8b9ab0599b08bd/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
If damages and specific performance are usually equivalent, why don’t courts allow SP and damages interchangeably (i.e., why have an irreparable injury requirement)?
◦ Are there reasons why courts might be reluctant to order specific performance short of impossibility or “extremely-difficult-to” cover situations?
![Page 10: Common Law: A court will not grant equitable relief if P has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., unless P’s injury is irreparable). An inadequate remedy](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052708/5a4d1b667f8b9ab0599b08bd/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Was the land subject to the rental contract in Van Wagner unique?◦ http://vimeo.com/3002147
Why did the court refuse to grant specific performance?
Is Van Wagner’s reasoning consistent with the courts’ treatment of irreparable injury in Campbell Soup or Pardee?◦ Assume your parents’ commissioned Picasso portrait of you?
![Page 11: Common Law: A court will not grant equitable relief if P has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., unless P’s injury is irreparable). An inadequate remedy](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052708/5a4d1b667f8b9ab0599b08bd/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
One important factor re whether P has shown irreparable injury is that damages are hard to value.
◦ This factor is a corollary to uniqueness – “That which is hard to replace is usually difficult to value.”
Just because difficulty of valuation is a consideration re irreparable injury, however, DOESN’T mean it is the only way to show irreparable injury.
What else might have caused the court to deny the injunction?