what does who comes to equity must come with clean hands mean?

Question

equity maxims

Answer 1

gEquity

Answer 2

Equity Clean Hands

Answer 3

Equity was developed in the middle ages (England) from the courts of chancery. Prior to the development of that court the law had found itself in a position where it was fundamentally unfair. Equity was the response in which the courts would rule on what was fair and not neccessary bound by the common law that bound other courts. The need to break the common law was seen as neccessary. In the current age the courts have embraced the principles of fairness and may give a equitable remedy and it is not neccessary to go to a specialized courts. The House of Lords recognized that regardless of a common law principles it is more appropriate to blend equity and common law together. Nonetheless there remains a seperation by the fact that some principles remain a equitable remedy only and not a legal one (this may be confusing). For example a contract is bound by legal principles of offer and acceptance that has been developed at common law and one can trace back the development. A caveat on the other hand remains only a equitable interest and has not the common law to back it up (I say that hesistantly). A legal interest is stronger than a equitable interest.

To the question at hand, the maxim "to come with clean hands" is because one is asking the courts to do what is fair then one must come in a true position. That means without malicious intent or knowledge of a lie or any other factor that the reasonable person would consider that the person has knowledge of/ done that is other than turth and honest practice (clean hands). Therefore if one is truly just and honest and a legal result would result in some unfair principle than one may seek a equitable remedy.

Answer 4

The rule is that the inequitable conduct that will amount to unclean hands must be related to the transaction involved in the action before the Court; this is similar to the common law principle that the court will not entertain an action that is premised on illegality, though in equity, inequitable conduct which will amount to unclean hands need not be illegal in the strict sense, as required at law, it is sufficient if the conduct is unconscionable and morally reprehensible. The inequitable conduct need not have been to the other party to the action. For example, where a husband conveyed property to his wife so as to protect the property from his creditors, an action by the husband to claim the property back from the wife may be denied on the ground of his inequitable conduct to his creditors. See Gascoigne v. Gascoigne (supra). The position is the same where a partner in crime brought an action seeking the aid of the Court to compel his co-partner to account for the proceeds of their criminal activities. See Highwayman's Case (1893) 9 L.Q. Rev. 197. The basis of the doctrine is to prevent a party from employing the machinery of the court to enforce the advantage of his inequitable conduct. However, that a per- son must come into a Court of Equity with clean hands does not mean that a person seeking relief in court must have a blameless or transparent record; it does not mean general depravity (see Dering v. Winchelsea (1787) 1 Cox Eq. 318 at 319); for equity does not demand that its suitors shall have had blameless lives. Per Justice Brandeis in Loughran v. Loughran 292 U.S. 216 at 229 (1934). A person does not become an outlaw and lose all rights by doing an illegal act. Per Justice Holmes in National Bank & Loan Co. v. Petrie, 189 U.S. 423 at 425 (1903). He is denied relief only if his reproachable or inequitable conduct has an immediate and necessary relation to the re- lief sought from the Court. See Dering v. Winchelsea

Answer 5

It means that equity will not permit a party to profit by his own wrong. For example, if you murder someone for the inheritance, you are not entitled to receive the inheritance, because you cannot profit off the death you caused.

Answer 6

dh1977 is correct.

Another way to say it is that if someone is going to ask the court to order something, they must come in good faith and be worthy of that benefit. If someone acts in bad faith, or through fraud, or is not entitlted to the benefit, the court should refuse to grant it.