Injunction: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}}The [[injunction]] is an [[equitable]] [[remedy]] that originated in the English [[Courts of chancery|courts of equity]] to provide redress for wrongs for which an award of money [[damages]] doesn’t quite scratch the itch. An [[injunction]] can be given only when there is "no adequate remedy at law." So, “M’lud I don’t want money. I want him to stop doing what he’s doing, that he promised he wouldn’t.” Obvious examples where this principal is fairly self-evidently so are [[Confidentiality obligation - Confi Provision|confidentiality obligations]]. | {{g}}The [[injunction]] is an [[equitable]] [[remedy]] that originated in the English [[Courts of chancery|courts of equity]] to provide redress for wrongs for which an award of money [[damages]] doesn’t quite scratch the itch. An [[injunction]] can be given only when there is "no adequate remedy at law." So, “M’lud I don’t want money. I want him to stop doing what he’s doing, that he promised he wouldn’t.” Obvious examples where this principal is fairly self-evidently so are [[Confidentiality obligation - Confi Provision|confidentiality obligations]]. | ||
{{injunctions and confidentiality agreements}} | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*{{confiprov|Remedies}} in the context of our lovely [[Confi Anatomy]] | *{{confiprov|Remedies}} in the context of our lovely [[Confi Anatomy]] |
Revision as of 15:20, 3 March 2020
|
The injunction is an equitable remedy that originated in the English courts of equity to provide redress for wrongs for which an award of money damages doesn’t quite scratch the itch. An injunction can be given only when there is "no adequate remedy at law." So, “M’lud I don’t want money. I want him to stop doing what he’s doing, that he promised he wouldn’t.” Obvious examples where this principal is fairly self-evidently so are confidentiality obligations.
Injunctions to enforce confidentiality agreements
There common conception, at least among the draughtspeople of confidentiality agreements, that having your recipient acknowledge in the contract that your contractual obligations, while of course severe, are of a type for which damages might not be adequate compensation improve your odds of obtaining an equitable injunction later. Thus, it is common to see confidentiality agreements do just that.
But — and here’s the snippy bit — in the commercial world, anything of value is meant to be quantifiable in the dollars and sense. Homo economicus’ view might be blinkered; it might be philistine — but it conforms to classic economic theory. So in one sense if the right you feel has been infringed can’t be addressed with folding stuff, it can’t have been very valuable.
And so, in most cases where a confidentiality agreement bites, this seems to be the case. If — boring example — I give you my confidential shareholding arrangements so you can complete your KYC procedures, or if — racy one — for a fat payoff, you agree a venal gagging clause to not disclose the terrible psychological damage I inflicted on you where you were my studio gopher[1], and then you go and blab about these things, I might be embarrassed, but I am not likely to suffer much direct financial loss. Am I? Even if you publish my confidential client list to the world, my loss is likely to be indirect: the loss of profits from business I didn’t, as a consequence win, which any student of the law of contracts will know is hard to recover under a normal contract action.
See also
- Remedies in the context of our lovely Confi Anatomy