Talk:Clean hands/Archive 1

Deleted Shepard Fairly Example

It was confusing at best (if an example of unclean hands at all), and did not explain how the AP's suit was an action in equity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.104.20 (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Template removed

I just wanted to note that I was the one who added the contract law template, and then removed it shortly thereafter. While I don't have any concrete information I don't dispute that this defense is used mostly in contract law (that's where I was introduced to it), inasmuch as contract disputes form a large proportion of litigation, especially seeking equitable remedies. I just was not sure that it's appropriate to use a "Contract Law" template for something that is not just a contracts concept. NTK 16:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Equitable Remedy

A lot on this page is about equitable remedies in general and not specific to the "unclean hands" doctrine. Should this material be moved to the equitable remedy page? Chris R 07:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad Example

The "Hank Hardnose" example is a bad one. If Hank is suing for breach of contract, he's probably suing for damages, not an equitable remedy. Also, on the facts, Grace would be much better off arguing fraudulent misrepresentation than relying on unclean hands. Dale Clapperton (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Another bad example

I've got to say: an example that is given and subsequently negated under the same heading is a poor example indeed. Anyone know of a better one?129.89.111.227 (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Example again

I am not a legal expert so I was hoping to find some information here about unclean hands.

However the example cited is crap, and I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. What has slander got to do with anything? Why not put in an example that makes sense to a lay person.

I was hoping to comfirm unclean hands means that the claim is when someone can't be sued because the plaintiff was knowingly involved in an illegal/unethical activity.

What has slander got to do with anything?

It's like the blind leading the blind - or moreover - the whole article needs rewriting, by someone who is actually coherent and knowledgeable about the term unclean hands. As noted by an editor above, two years ago, much of what is on this page has nothing to do with this doctrine.

Equitable remedies

By any random chance, is there someone about who can explain why the "equitable remedies" subject has any relation whatsoever to clean/unclean hands doctrine? If not, does anyone have objections to it being moved? arimareiji (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

reply--- Before common law you went to the king and he decided on cases. With common law cases were decided by judges. There were situations then (as there are still today) where the common law did not cover cases or where the law was bad. You still had the right to appeal to the king for equity (or reasonableness). The king proclaimed an equitable remedy. It could be anything he thought just. So he could do things regular courts can't. But if you showed up there and demonstrated you were a jerk, then he threw you out and refused to hear your case. Much like Judge Judy does today. Remember blood feuds were common. If you showed up asking for Joe to be punished for killing your brother because you killed his sister, the blood on your hands would cause the king to throw you out. The king's assistants follow this rule and require clean hands.

No, that isn't how it works, or ever worked. First of all, there is no such thing as a common law court--there are courts of law and courts equity, both of which operate under common law rules. Second, one did not appeal from law to equity (nor does one now) they are two separate systems offering different remedies--A hurts B, B can sue A in a law court for damages; A breaks a contract to sell a house to B, B can ask that a court of equity order that A sell B the house. Finally, equity courts were run by the Chancellor, not the King. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.104.20 (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There got to be too many cases so a special court of equity took over the role for the king. Why have 2 courts, eh? So the court of equity eventually got rolled into regular court, Requests for equity are actually being handled by a separate court than the common law one you think you are in.

You can't approach the court of equity without clean hands. You can't have caused your own problems. eg. my neighbour smashed my windows, make him pay. Why did he smash your windows? Cause I park in his driveway so my wife can park in mine. He doesn't have a car & he gets annoyed when his ailing mother has to park down the street. It's your own fault Jerk! Get out of here,

Trouble is most equity claims are tricky because they are outside of common law. If a law gets passed that covers your problem then you have to go through common law. First you need to demonstrate that common law doesn't apply and that makes the examples hard to understand because of all the law involved. Smashing someone's windows is covered by common law but the example shows clean hands.

70.26.127.115 (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)strider22

Etymology

The term "unclean hands" reminds me of the Biblical concept of physical uncleanliness as a sign of sinfulness; so I was wondering if its use as a legal term might originate from the Jewish legal tradition. B7T (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. My studies show that using clean/unclean to translate tameh/tahor misrepresents them. It comes from the immersion. However people going to the mikveh have to scrub themselves before getting in to eliminate obstructions between them and the water, not to eliminate grime or germs. It's a positive act the person has to do as closure to a situation that Torah reprobates, a concept that also applies to a sin offering or an asham offering. You're confusing customary practice that doesn't even have a basis in anecdotal evidence, with the scientific concept of hygiene, due to a bad translation.4.248.218.90 (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved

The term is "Clean hands", not "Unclean hands", which I have redirected here. (in WP jargon we would say assume good faith). "Clean hands" is what it says in the lede three times. Wikipedia is not a legal textbook, but since that article is barely referenced and I have added a reference, I don't see why it shouldn't be under WP:TITLE as the shorter title and has had a {{citation needed}} reference for five years, so if anyo ne wants to discuss they can but I am used to the fact nothing gets discussed unless you are WP:BOLD. Legal references would be good, the ones in the article, except the one I added, are vague. Si Trew (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no point IP editors without talk pages coming to edit the article and then not responding at all for years. I think that is a good example of not coming with clean hands, I imagine they have done their pupillage now and are earning a crust defending knock for knock cases in the county court or something, but some of us actually care about making the encyclopaedia better, and that is what I try to do, little by little day by day, with my fallible head and fallible fingers. Si Trew (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

amazing lack of examples

I note several comments above, out of the misty past, saying "that's a bad example." Now the article has no examples at all. Wow. You'd think law schools would have a traditional favorite example. —Tamfang (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)