Notre Dame Law Review
Volume 96 Issue 3 Article 5
1-28-2021
Equitable Remedies: Protecting "What We Have Coming to Us"
Larissa Katz Professor and Canada Research Chair in Private Law Theory, University of Toronto
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr
Part of the Civil Law Commons, and the Legal Remedies Commons
Recommended Citation 96 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1115 (2021)
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized editor of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 104 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 R R R R R - , s p d ’ te te ly m i ies to m a a sset ga d d nce, ded
e a i n ty of a s co i 1132 1120 1116 1125 1130 anada m a tion to ’ ma nother a C unifie others, w -for st a a g w Review a d vers th, Em a ercise those i cts (specific cts nize i ble re h prov l of l x g a i te l its of priv a g es workshop to us, .... nne m i injunctions), e L a g n m a S G d hts to hay Dorfman, tive situ i in g Si n still requires the am a d ercise those powers contr ounc t pl m onal purposes, so
priv S” ma lly to e i x n a C g m HEM d a a tpal onel i TIN i ccount offers our ri T ve co s research. an, Av ctu i a d Notre D a g C a s, fro s, n a bout th TO a ons may reproduce and a ccount of equit te us to e re i esearch ccountin
for equity to reco a a ies like specific perfor e their nor G g a eq: 1 12-JAN-21 7:09 R ga TO U d l g l hts d t we h ty Workshop at Notre Dame ue, out of the li S for th tut i amet, L e i g ent to sell l g a a n g OTE es r S ga a m i G m n a t it to us i cre. This nst i R g t i on to the new and Am wh a n interest beyon vate Law Theory, Un tephen Waddams, amon OMIN i ree i i g d a S t ck s to obli C ctions (interlocutory injunctions, i n e of le of e ag er to brin vin petition ( tat ble re a
a a g i a — d a : P : a r m ” n n , theoretic * rises, I ...... n Pr a a S a ve i d ray, Hanoch Da a tz AVE e ce.
a ller, Ir OMIN ded fund B i ...... alum A e r e a i ” i ir co r m S i d to her. The nee C a ple, on at the Equ to us 5 C y h des a c H i g K g i w, in le ve powers to ch ha oes so f wi am a U a in ad a in RS g C a S
111 xam to us ht not m HMENT m g d ons. lre scuss te l i TO riss ig C i a lly infor n ...... I a ences and Human and ences in ction) to court a a a i ram prov s co p in p WNE istinctive equit R a G est c L m S g a d ve co rady, EMEDIE N S ga ours, viz., our property ri irs a gg t we B O h a nce a duals and nonprof al R esearch E g ry people h i i octrin ff a ve co v R a T d a i OMIN n any format at or below cost, for educat a rs Pro oc S i i in HAT t we h S C ent power to convey in or l constructive trust, equity intervenes to prevent others fro ted from d d person h
ser is the new owner of Bl a n the copyr i ha nuis already LE d a i a cle a te of i i a NJU C W OVENANT t a d new, th, Malcolm Thorburn, and wh es the author, prov B t or t we h i e o so. But priv i a a “ anada C AVE a f t is on a d vate Law Theory Workshop, and a faculty speaker ser epen i i U
m ct. Throu m i C l constructive trust), unf a s d en McFarlane, Paul M i s Art a S a stance. wh p between wh i wh i H i TY B -for st g “ to d s response to this to response s chool. Molly E wh d R E AND ’ v Pr ga e d dent cle benef ...... S i g TIVE i
, i esearch C evelops m ssa Katz. Ind g a llows th C ree R i d the re contr I W s prov nne n a WHAT WEHAVE i i d a a R AN ag ivertin “ es of th tephen n S w s Art i T d cks the resources to close. For e S i a pl a S TION a ve , HAT EQUITA ULTIPA a UI E C g a or anada te l ercise of the in g R w l llows for C a x nce of nce, the re n interest in a a tion of equity of tion Professor and 2021 Lar a s of our interest in bout irs in which the purch a s e chool, Tel-Av ODU a ’ ma ma llanova Law I. W ncludes th m a bute cop te l
n ent to protectin This Article i S i as each copy i II. M R priv M K g a ff a IV. N * : g III. m © a prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown i str pl w it C Y i tolzenber ave very helpful comments and su NT x a owner brin injunctions, priv perfor l powers, property (injunctive relief in protection). m perfor protect in ter where we h e Matthew Hard S g ass research excellent of at V and the obstructin Toronto. Th Law d lon and I \\jc 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 104 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 104 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 104 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 R R R R R ” s D 3 n l- 8 i : i i ble th R M K on i nst a nc- on nct i t hts, i i i i 96 i s ddle, C Y a i i 1140 1136 1145 st XFO st ig eneral . r c per- . Kelly, i g i cat i g se of all es can- es al rela- i C i f B i ty: ons for O i amuel L. g to us— i i nterest tted any . . 1134 S i v i g el s dec s case, the i ntervenes HE i i ’ ht a h what we of Equit rs of Inland A d i le n ) n conjunc- ht.my On ’ the mpl i g i i m g 2 g T ig reement for ig ty n n t. HY g i i i i se in ts enforceab , Dan i onary , vate law r i i st omm i of spec g al r al i W se 1 C ies g i d te of two d .). In th 449 (Evan J. i e es table r g The Syste es, I follow i i le table remed table n an a i m ulate the exerc i i AND ch equ g hts throu AW ke pr g i oldber i Re mportant n tors—by anyone w ( es, as reparat i L ig al revers i i G ray, i i Y htred v. es that ar c eq: 2 12-JAN-21 7:09 B st R i i S to re i g ve trusts) are best under- .P. ray, “ IA i n terms of n wh i HEM i C B C n no preex nct equ i i ht that extends beyond the sed by the defendant , Ou i T table r st . ig IDU i i t. One g es that travel from one person cally enforceable contracts for so as i i F i table remed ” s that, unl TO i f nes of contractual pr i al remed i i amuel L. g S G See e. s thus a compos amuel L. old, John ue, i on of what we have com TION table r S ce of i i G i g OOK OF C nct equ ue that these equ these that ue Where a vendor operate i B at g “ es—dut i 3 ...... 113 OMIN i st i hbors, as compet nterests and dut es who stand ll ar C S der spec i ODU AND i ts content and i i s that equ
d i ig ll ar ll i 142–43 (2d ed. 2006) (formulat R al form of a preex a of form al i that th not i g H ons and construct i ” table nature of these remed ILL 206 (appeal taken from En i es enforce a d i D n TION i NT ons i C AVE ted to land. R cle I i C I w i es to the contract who bear the power to com- C table QUITY th eds., 2020); i i able dut m i ht, I w ” ) W i i H rd part XFO i 563 (Andrew m , E ig ot ve rules S RS es. i njunct O NJUN i ht and an equ s Art nterests may be comprom g tkoff eds., 2019); i s free of the conf AW n remed n i i i i pt nant and who have not themselves comm nterest and the power to comprom I OINT Si TON on. ig n terms of i HE s i i nterest, w L i i Y ’ on, or expropr i G c performance. rd part T i J . 530 (2016). i i R ht f n the same way as le h ne n th i ons i nd of r in i EV i g i ig table remed ...... olat reement, as ne , IVATE i R i THIN mant mes to th vers proscr AND i g R i table i R reed upon. cance of the equ “ UTO able dut able m ies i i s k i i O f g i c performance need not and often do not track what the ( d OMPETITO C nst th P i obert H. s that the equ i e i nuat out and protect i f ot n C s, however, not l i R a ht, both i m hts v i ...... W g EW
g n & Henry E. LO ty as g LA L. ig cally performable contract i i table r ig n on, d i tted)). R ig i C i i i AH f N ne i R dea ry Re “ i HAT A UTUAL a OODWILL ION herw ller & S s NTE i S i S s om G es to an a i uci th spec i p to the compla , 63 U i d i s or cont or s se the protected Cf. LU OOK OF . M i s account g on of equ ies Fi B i es actually a C The core cla A spec i B i ce of the equ d ht call ht V. W 6notredamelawreview[vol ly L. i e VI. vate law r i 3 Th 2 1 On the s hts: the contractual r s protected throu i th a decree of spec prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown VII. M i ig m i ON AND i ve feature of th onsh on w evenue [1959] UKHL 3, [1960] A ray, VIII. I ig i i i t ty. An equ as part R House of Lords found that a contract to transfer the benef Re Em Paul funct powers where the cla (emphas not H w 111 C \\jc formance (and relatedly, B t i i enforceable a prom stood as sett to the next, somet t of th m not be understood wron account, these equ the obstruct r contractual r pr t part the purchase and sale of land, a standard context 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 104 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 104 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 105 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 , - y c . c 7 i i i a ht g f OF f ht s a on to ta- f i i i i i i an g ig s an zed ver- the S ig i Cl i i g ested n g The d i n on n ch no n at 425 i n i 4 helley v helley i . i gg See, e. g scret table or a i d S i t. The con- on, a fea- ned for: I i s equ “ i i ryl ’ c perform- i to a a n classes of ” s for a court a for s s as much a f stently favor table r i i i i i s for spec n a spec g i d, what she i M on anyone nequ th eds., 2020) t g s too does not t i i i i scret i g i c execut n OUNDATION preserv “i i i m ” ce of f en reco n ve trust. i i i i i F S cally performable. t as t i s pa i al d ze the purchase ht, s equ f ven as of d i i i AL s l i i onary remedy. The g more: a secured dered as a trustee of nt) wrote: nd c ’ i C gi i i i i s v Palmer v s spec g she bar “ s ty, not contract. As an ce g i de, too, i n n the court. on of a contract for sale i 50)). Th i i i i th not s b n 8 i scret s po s sou OPHI i i i Rigg i i n proceed S sted that spec i s s to her—the purchase i s cons on that ’ i eq: 3 12-JAN-21 7:09 m i g S g n equ ns n a bankruptcy, wh n i i n tself. Th c performance unpacked i i i Fro i s a d i HILO i f n P i s 111 i nd of construct scret ty i i tself to real i i amet & Henry E. h the vendor nterest w pec nta in n the form of breach or d i c performance of performance c i or S c performance for certa , i S g i i i f f t s found i i pursky, i ranted as a matter of course or r i i 4)). Even where courts have su ). ze and enforce the buyer g nterest that s not someth c performance would be i on i g they have i i table remedy that i n contexts where courts cons . Z . 88 le ma f ” ch ses on the conclus [T]he vendor i i ves her someth n n i v. Draper, 365 N.W.2d 443, 446–47 (Neb. i i i i “ C g g ce. Now she has an enforceable con- gi en i se that n on of the flow of what a person has com i i i 5 (1 i nherently a matter of jud i 8 c performance ty n an reements for the purchase and sale of land. On ch ar ssent i i i i i mchuk, Ir f c performance. The same two features of s all wh g dent on the buyer i i i i a ” i s of wh vers f i i 1, 3 i Kerr v. Day, 14 Pa. 112 (1 g t, mes treated as a k i i n the result but not on th ns an equ enjam 8 g enerally be i i table l s Kl ns, d
when spec B i n i g ht to enforce the contract i i “ g overlooked ty to decree spec decree to ty t w-Equity Distinction i ig nst obstruct i n g a ut equ i & i ve bas i n g a ves the vendor pr B i on or d s r (c i ’ g s somet ” en attached to the land s equ gi i tself—a i ht are ev ’ n the party, but of sound d i i ed wholly to the transferee would be spec ssent should the L d. n a bankruptcy throu i “ ig g ple that spec i i d i ht to resort to the land n personam duty to perform the contract by pay ht oldber ntervenes to reco n i c performance i h courts often award spec i a nc ig ig G sk of be reement for purchase and sale. In a decree of spec s the purchase pr f i g i i i ns (d nterest g p on the one from whom performance onary nature of the remedy even so, see, for example, ty tors i i i i i i en also .P. i es for a breach of table r 291, 303 (Denn nst obstruct C g se belon i i at 10 (Lord Jenk i 7 A.2d 769, 770 (Pa. 1963) ( . a n a decree of spec n v. Foley, 61 Md. 3 ht). 8 scret l Power c performance rema i d i g table i c performance, such as a i I i a i f n the land ig f n favour of a purchaser wh i i i i QUITY to her . The vendor ” ici John ht to be pa , 53 A. 424, 425–26 (Md. 1902), where the court wrote that ht a d g g res the power to comprom ned for an E c performance i i lso ig ve dama ig i n n that, althou lark, 1 s equ a f a i i a contract for the sale of real estate, pers i s now protected a Ju g i he has the r spec gi C : Popple i g g m n g S g i onary nature of the remedy. Mohrlan nd of equ n see i i n i n ve trust AW OF i i i nterest ]equitable remedie ]equitable i nherently d table remedy, spec table r i M K 1 i i L 5); at 2, 5. Lord Jenk ce ow ce— 4 Th ard s k nsay the bedrock pr reed-upon reed-upon sum, not a l i i i prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown 8 i . g i scret on to other cred C Y i g a i d n the form of a l s founded [on] the purchaser I Payne v. the real estate for the purchaser and the latter becomes purchase money for a the seller. trustee of the balance of the g (observ contracts, spec and not as of r equ ture of the remedy at r award the Co. v. Si equ of court a for course of matter of law to 19 and enforced th cally enforceable a performance, equ ble shares that otherw struct i 202 purchase and sale transfers land before the purchase pr has com tractual r debt. pr she bar a i contract can pull off. What the pr vendor has com s \\jc matter not of absolute r (quot that spec re ance may yet be refused, such as unjust due to hardsh d who acqu THE Kraemer performance. equ her, the conceptual and normat 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 105 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 105 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 105 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 - - - ? E a 8 i g c 3 ct R al at S : i m R ty. i 7 ra- n a t M K f AD- i see i to nt . or l 8 i i a i rant i G d 5 96 g TU EPT C Y g I s on of W c per- U. L. ( ue for C i i n . C i arbara wh ardner or the ue, by i ch spe- 8 f g OMME spec on, etc. on, U ’ cab i i B i i g Contr G g R assump- es about n C es ON i i , 9 i es. ke dam- T g n nature of n favor of i i C 8 g the Philoso- S i lable, 0. n ple,
g in
i i vers 9 i d . L. 247, 247 247, L. . 8 Y i n TEPHEN UFFOLK , ll ar R n most of the ty takes the n i R S i i S S i HE response that nc ct a on c performance Specific Perfor fferent from , 121 A.2d i arnett, ” i IE i respect for the i i a s, f nd cult to ar g i B i s noth ). John i i : T lso nterest i RS about spec on, d on, i S 8 n I w a i ff , 45 OMPA i nst theor g i E i 6 C C eneral appl n s unava a OVE see i shart, i the pr nce ht, d g g ts underly i ‘ TI p. R i a i S . J. . le spec ig ); table es). a ult Rules, i nk i nclud next best to them. ” ests that, were the prom- i ve trust ve remedy l M andy E. i i g i a “ i ch of Contr g of contractual dut OMPLEMENTA ONT NJU R n ’ gg a g i
ty have the power to n 6, at 179, 179– C C I i eq: 4 12-JAN-21 7:09 i
hen-W n
u onsh es ” 8 S i i i on for the b R g G C nst obstruct nst i , 27 A 27 , i rst best w, Def onary. In other words, such a O t would be d ter to be i i AND a at 100. There i a i an su that wh an equ es of a g , cat G . i g g g i t d f ndy c performance and the not i st, n n i I Mrahunec v. Faust i GS i i OLVIN i i Law 100–02 (201 ct L f 9) (ar ies for Bre g scret S i b a i c performance and dama about what we have com d 8 i ate remedy, E n ht i n Flubs His Entr e ON i i f g es. a t R i R ig i , no. 1, 19 m i s d th M n : Y i i IVATE i lable for breach. ’ S OMPETIN on to walk away from the contemplated hl M i R i c performance when what the prom ther a reparat , W nature of contracts adopted, spec s more reveal Contr n favor of (more) i C dea of a construct Specific Relief onal ways of th i i ig i S f i g OL ad i P i : d n when the f ty protects, a protects, ty n i HT i t does so only as a result of a court hav 9–90 (19 g a nvolves a form of r i AW s taken by a wr n B ef ava G i 8 arnett puts forward a presumpt i i I EMEDIE n le the courts of equ a nd at 771 (c mary duty to perform a contract—both es i i i L . & P B rectly from the part contractual relat i R R spec ces of contractual remed i IFE TO raswell, .
T i s reason nd and to not perform. The extent to wh esi nk the , g g the appropr i d ’ i C 9, 4 C es both spec L d I g n m HIL n A i 8 i ch equ ch reement to buy and sell that equ IAL g i ty n i ders to be the just Function of Re amag on between spec R [w]h i i i vate law remed g i ” n “ d cho andy i . P i beral contract theor RC MITH . 4 D consent theory of contract. i onal status g n sor a free opt C R i S “ i rant ONAL ht. a n se of the power nst convent ONT O EV i chard i g i bes the rel S ig i RS e her m C R n The Hol a
i A. Ri E g , on of the b ton eds., 2017), h n equ
g OMME i c underl ture i g P a C hts gi n ed, Y IN ). For example, Jonathan Mor g i . L. i ” C OM in H see by c performance lo ts except cle reveals, I th i R depends on what added that , C i i i ” vate law theory as e But see nt. I TEPHEN ures the connect f g d ewed as flow i OLI i c performance has the same qual a contractual duty, i i s deployed, just a way of descr S , the flow of wh of flow the , g the next best th , F i ve n rk , at 23, 35. i ble Ri g ve the prom ig f i i P R n es and other pr g i a a M a i t n c of an underly s v On the N po g gi s Art i i i n i g i 146–71 (2019), but compare w 88 gi ally, n pr lien n DNE i i to her supr to i , ch a R g an, “ i AW e of Min g arah Worth , A tself f g g race and not of r arbara H. Fr S E. Allan Farnsworth, i reparat S in Everyth hts that at least for a l L g n G “ In B “ IPLE AND
m
yne v. Cl isin a s the law that prescr d ig See : C i a ” as capable of expla n zes dama ” of the prom m n wh s autonomy to chan the lo s account runs a No aspect of a system of contract law i o & i P ’ hl g a i IN g s co s “ e. Ch g s of g ee espec OHN n R i rect enforcement of the pr a n t—a s because there was an a ig g r d i S ple n i i i t does of what the vendor/purchaser had com n EMEDIE i i c performance, the exerc c performance based on a m at enforc i i s sor l i i n ies i i i i i i Th R f f , P t EMEDIAL a d hed all factors relevant to assess i i
i S 8notredamelawreview[vol e nc . 627, 634 (2012). 6 5J nts out that spec R i c performance ed h reement reement es, represent i ig prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown i
reed to was m i i ew f EV ons than g g IAL nce i g i pr i ssory stance on the explanat R 175 (2011) (observ phy of Pro “ conceptual start i spec decree Fr preva a exchan by another. prom (1979) ( t po character about 101. the d ham V contracts. a Jonathan Mor formance would lose (Pa. 1956)). As th contexts h person 111 a us: v court \\jc contrast, that spec spec Re can a we prom c mately connected to what one cons track DAM OF performance performance a C 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 105 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 105 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 106 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 - s ” R g 9 i p rs i se ht i i n i ht, to es, i s a g FO ent i g g ig nter- on). g i nt on n S our on to i table se the flow i i i i i fferent g n “ es i r com- r ts own i ples are ues that i i i ke r ke n i nto) or In th lable to i g nterests i i nstance, i n a nu i l i i 8 i nc i s EMEDIE ’ res i R th ar ef i i s cont tated by the
i i ons by transfer- th respect to i able duty that i m hts to a i dera S ty takes a broader nformed by com- ons, blocka at s the equ ew, when that was ’ i i i sms ava i i ig se of ownersh ot i table pr table standpo ig ATIVE i i i vert what another what vert g R i ve rel es w i i table remed i cranes to turn around n what you had com had you what n rs that nto v at 226. For a survey of i i i . g ht. ve trust), unfa trust), ve note 6, at 177–79. I take berty to compete, etc. compete, to berty i d n ons, asset protect i OMPA ig i i a s performed). her power to comprom s. es are r ons do— C i eq: 5 12-JAN-21 7:09 i i nterrupt g g S i tlement, a property-l a tlement, See i njunct n n i ll see, equ i i i in supr i s nterest al mechan h I develop here a very d very a here develop I h s because equ i i , ty to others , i to her: the seller of land bou s 111 i g ck eds., 2005). g n what the buyer had com S i i l g njunct ned the power to comprom i i i nce n al ent al ve nature and structure of an i i ty on my account does well to i table remed ty standards: not any expectat i i i expectat se of our l our of se nd of nd ma i i ve form of r al construct al i ts breach fully compensated, the party i ADDAM ble i nct nterests at play. In each to us and the ne mon i s althou s a n, as we w i s, on my account, nterest i ’ i me a contract was entered i i g on for breach, that requ ed her contractual obl nct st i se—free of a s account of equ i i i rs, a state of affa g i i th n g son al i i ood of the contract i st a i me a contract g g i m to her. That Th re nto the k the nto S g i t. A h the only le 7 schar i n . i i g to her. Equ ons), property ( nterlocutory sed the g i cular course of deal i i g s the thout an easement allow i Specific Perfor nd of patr of nd s, the exerc the s, n respects that are not necess i n as n i n on by the defendant. g n i g i i i g i n ., at the t in med at. Here the seller knew the future state of affa i ce of n at to us. i to our vulnerab i g i i d ty enters the scene to protect a party for that d or otherw s theory of equ ut those g i g n i ons ( g ohen & Ewan McKendr g ., at the t B round of th i n lar ve lar a n njunct n i i C n i g i i g
i tself a k a tself i i to translate m l al state of affa erst i i s fully performed or g ht and remedy, see W d g ll unpack the d i n i i hts protected by these remed n hts to compensat ce, and part ig i to her br i s Un o i ig vely comprom g ig n a s a n and i ve foot g scuss th i on (e. ether had a i n a th n i i nst expropr g i i s g i
i n what we have com se of our powers to contract, the exerc th, n a 221 (N ll protect. i i i al r endas for th for endas i g i g T as she has not i c performance, the remed the performance, c g i ll d n m C g ved what she had com cle, I w i i f es to i nstances, equ A S i i table r i zed by means of that contract but reta i on of a le i n what she had com R on of land for the purposes of development. The equ ty w i i i i i t ty as respond mately hatched throu i nd of case to prevent the seller from exerc i i i s to her. It does so f the contract t i zat ONT nher ndustry pract i onel ps at the outset (e. nterest g i s Art i i i i i i ument to be to ument on), and court act t. I w C ons. In the back gi s k n nformed by common sense and commun
i i i i g nked nature of r i i L ve and conceptual foot i ve than contract law on what a party had com i ty to set a set to ty ntervenes to ensure that others do not obstruct or d or obstruct not do others that ensure to ntervenes nterest i i i i s protected a See Even i ht to performance to ht s on (account HOF n th onsh vers ’ i In th i i nterest so lon .e., the exerc table ty i ]equitable remedie ]equitable ood the part C t from a contract a from t ig i nterl t i i i i the land. If the seller transfers w i M K g 1 i ch 8 7 ht to what we have com g i EA prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown i ew of equ n C Y R enerally i ig i n the real conceptual and normat prof to you that equ mon sense, her: the acqu what a person has com the sense, the equ of value— or d v plans—le my own ar own my may not have rece perspect for condo development may have fully d r overhead, she has effect r equ protects (spec contracts meant to be real buyer vene that g B 202 secondary remed normat \\jc us, author the r the wh the on factors beyond the scope of the le equ has com relat even at the conclus In all of these i pet sance act 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 106 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 106 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 106 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 - - c c c c g i i 3 h n n C ), i i i i l at : es es i i f f f f i n g se, M K 8 ch i i i i g g i i . i hts, d 96 rear, C Y n the ht to i on for ig . G i
n., LL upreme ” ig i See i stency Hanoch S ranted as i to them, F g nto a duty ” ew . 415, 429 i i g S o. v. scret ve prom s
shed manu- R i i i n i ht. . ary facts and hts (wh C an & Heller, . 215 (191 g i M ons may m i table reme- ness to award . courts have i at i g S C o., 129 A. 374, n S ig g dence that the . ig ed that spec S i
ncons g onal burden of i i table r C i n S i ements between g i i t U. onal v i g n Da ll dent tted). In mak i s not that spec i ev 8 heep i i i i t a t derat on of whether spe- s ne i ves g i nadequate for land S i i ’ i i s no n ht. For example, the i onary nature of equ ons, and construc- s w i nt i , 24 ’ i i cular parcel of land r rreparable by dama ig i i i contr trad on of whether dama to her, as a party to rst c nst the award of spec of award the nst ty i “ i i i hbor, as a party to a g S a nct equ i ons om s po scret n g ig i Press i i These equ i c performance eq: 6 12-JAN-21 7:09 st d i U S i f 9 ew eschews any d es to be hts (our property r tat tates, i te njunct i Keystone i n equ i g ll presume as much and move S a i to you, translat c performance. The i g TO ig n.90 (f i . v th the quest tate a tate g f n i i 8 S i i l n ffs have the add on of all the ev t i G i i i i ted h a number of U. ept. 2, 2020) (unpubl i cally, as a matter of r al r g reed). S nt i 9, 3 . courts, requ n what they have com i ch spec i g g 8 i S ued that the on reveals, there ll expla nherently d – i i g i derat an law on th OMIN ons m ons on of a d i onal U. i i . courts w i reements for the sale of land. i 88 C t S g onary, contextual cons i n wh
Kann v. Wausau Abras i i c proof that the part the a i g se remedy eventually awarded, whether spe- f ve, they have not thereby den vert value or obstruct the channels throu i n the Un nterest g ll i i n i anad i i derat i on. I w o v. Paramadevan, [1996] 2 a i n s quotat AVE t i C i i g i scret t an law, pla i i i n c performance, ew from U. i i i H que. U. rmat nst a breach of the defendant table cons f i i i ne rule i E i i table nadequate as a matter of law and yet that spec l News Service v. Associ a scuss at 37 & nn. i i held that land contracts are i a . and g the prec anad . S “ W d emelha ht l C s un i S n a free market, as a ne table cons table tion c Performance 37 ( ig an and Heller conflate the quest i
n i i ably r compet on a a i f i i g fferent v onary remedy. Thou i See i i on and protect i i HAT on n the aff ht to what you have com i i See i chael Heller have ar ke spec mply that the trad sives Co. t i onary remedy i i ig i i tor a i pec nvar note 3 (d n njured party i nterest does not reflect the contractual arran on Intern n the case of land contracts w S i s duty to perform as a i scret i sted that i red. a , such that no spec g i ’ i es l i njunct i ce of fa i onary remedy rather than a remedy as of r onary remedy. D w scret I. W que. i i i ke i i ns u Abr a 129 A. at 379. As th i n quest i c performance follows automat i a 10 i n forms of power to d mately foreclose, an award of spec f i i i es are us s a d on of a r an and M s requ i scret nn, scret i lso supr a g s un i i i t g i a a i nt to the fact that courts have held dama tter of l a more-or-less br K n i “ tors can have an equ g fference between U. ty depend upon an equ nadequate See n cases l i i an and Heller i que on s ” s not a d i ma s a d s a d i i i o beyond the enforcement of le i i orp., 417 P.3d 70, 75 (Utah 2017); then c i
i g se certa , 142 (Wyo. 1953); and then c es). chael Heller, i g a lable at http://ssrn.com/abstract=3647336) (c i C i i 8 nn v. W s anada has taken a d on table remed a i i a s un ably s reco n. C i i K i tates ’ nst, and ult es but the pract ompet i i that dama that the land S m, Da t flows. ty t, and more. a i F C i n g g i i n quest i . They po on g i Equ i n , at 39–40, but rather that n 8 nvar i i a ch relate only to what we already have) and contractual r i an & M njunct ted (N.H. 1925)). However, Da ch pt) (ava 9 Hanoch Da i i i c performance c performance or an i g i s cla 20 notredamelawreview [vol an.). The d prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown i i 8 es stand as the reco CBC 10 i i rectly to whether any other equ other any whether to rectly f f rcumstances. ve trusts i ourt of i i i i C i supr v. 263 P.2d 13 37–3 contracts quest Da answered the former quest 37 are c courts and that spec 11 \\jc ( performance d t wh relate only to another Un a matter of course to the scr th performance court prov C land the free, unobstructed flow of what a person has com a contract, as a compet lawsu as a matter of law but c must of necess c hold performance tate a d performance. table remed where the content of that the part an as equ not to exerc wh 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 106 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 106 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 107 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 - , r e 1 n g i n n a- i 11 se i i See 2 i m s a n i to l igi i i ned g ons. r a ot i i ). enda c bsolu n n the ons n the de g ig i i i i i g n con- n a ve se the n what n i i i a e , we say th or to t), i ” d up and day homes t uses m i ht i i y h i nterest l i ned as the a i njunct ig ad nteract i c re i i r se her power sm t exerc lre i ’ i g nta a table) account cy pa nterest lackacre, i an i i i n n each case for i n a manner that able duty travels g vate law order. law vate i B ht to rema s i i i s at best a valuable ’ i n bute of the property t we pay to the person i ig nstance, acqu i nterest. A ne ht or the property ot rst case, the buyer a i s s “ i nterfere w ts flow. i i i i g i ig n the countrys wh i hbors don ht to acqu r land day property (des eq: 7 12-JAN-21 7:09 i s ne ty i ig S i i ig table n the pr the n th the pol e to e of human l i i i to her ( i g g that th on to ht to be ma g i g se another se s 11 t n i i n ig e w i i i uarantee th the i sance and the role of pant ather than g i i dama n contract or property law––theproperty or contract n cy. In the f , but the power to set an a i R c g i ary.underly The i as the ne i n i g c ps r i thstand i table duty can travel from the or i se the equ ts flow. Th i lackacre, the enjoyer of i i ty does so, the mechan i n a pos ht. bsolu ht-holder, by, for i i
B a g ig ig more has to happen e n to her as a party to a contract for the cy has to d g i onsh i ht—what exactly a person has com m g i l on––to construct an (equ es across a ran n t does not i i i n ig a i t i c i on to comprom to on vert on below of nu able r i i i i rd party who has assumed the levers of power text. ews), notw t i i nsurance pol i de pool, terrace, etc. as an attr g (versus repa i i ot to her so lon n s ns whoever now has the power to comprom n the last case, she does not already have the i al relat al i g g g i es may be to her as a part a as her to ometh scuss table table r g i i n fe i nt—var g or d S i i i on of peace and tranqu or the holder of a contractual r to us g n i i g n s le s s l 12 nterest. The equ r compet i alon ’ ze the v ee d hbors must also deal w lackacre (but a contractual r ’ in s usually the person on the other end of the contract, cy, but the contractual r i i i nsurance pol lackacre or as owner of a hol cy. zat i i S ), i B i i m ig s equ nterests of the r B nts to what one has com n the pos the n ed the named benef named the ed e as the owner of i i to her. When equ i nsurance proceeds: the seller has to exerc i ke a ne t, and, t. rd part outh of France, I was struck by how many sellers of hol i g i g i bsolu i g i ty to prevent others from comprom note 6, at 204. S a i a n ve co ” bsolu i table se e a i i a s standpo ’ m of th l to her e th real supr ons l chan i a i ty th the n the g c , i m i i g S l n t we h i n cans emphas a a i i c lackacre; ne on . . . . ent of the sted wh content i i i ht lead to B t ary of the pol ary on another de g i nsurance proceeds)—but p ADDAM stent w i i i ecently i i i ig nally to emer n able duty that constra c c i i R round rules of fa i , i i der what a person has com t that a person has com nterest by obstruct i i ty looks to a person a to looks ty i g The Now the person the Now It falls to equ ]equitable remedie ]equitable nely l i rant notes 61–62 and accompany ot i nterfere w M K 1 a i ht f s pos g g thout hav thout i prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown 11 W 12 i ons i C Y bsolu ig demand from the person whose name appears here ____ or the holder of s cons to i July; the holder of the w that m proceeds from the pol benef that person as the holder of the relevant contractual r r the rec benef does not already have second, the owner does not have 202 C purchase and sale of to prov \\jc her from equ Equ back com has person a what of tract or property po a to (North Amer she has com but not always. Th obstruct that equ nal party to the contract to a th what one has com ne that infr rout benef powers to comprom protect to whoever bears the power to comprom ble duty funct whose name appears here ____ or to the “ bearer of the note . . . th 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 107 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 107 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 107 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 - 3 g i t: : i ut nk M K n on i In i i The B 96 oods “ C Y njus- g i . . 15 . g rasped oldcorp g what we n tself the G ne from i i “ s to obl i an.) ( 25 (2019); them to i e ly that result. g C i n n R d not do not d 12-JAN-21 7:09 g n the struc- i i
i AW i n n i ch i nt to refuse a refuse to nt i L lso . 1673, 1693–94 i tl nsolvency pro- nsolvency T a i on Wines i EV C tself convey the d th others. Mere i A R ap between what i s not see R about a planned- i s, and sales of g
on, but I do not th d for, but had not as a form of property n g g nterest i i i g g i .); n L. n i n i Y n g ONT ps ent i n shortly). tled to occupy the rental n other contexts, too. contexts, other n i ne, suffered no 8 ne w i R i i i s bedrock i i C Re Lon A
i cular buyer. The court eq: al standpo al ty of breach, and reme- i s S i ns i zes that she d she that zes n l g l i hts to what you have com- have you what to hts i i i s ent on of a ntervent ke YOF i i i i n b R ig t ts own as produc s i . & M lls of lad i i g 121 (En ’ Th i d for, the bottles themselves ee, for example, real estate lease M ll expla n i ty i S i th respect to property she had g HEO s perhaps most read tors, 14 CC ssued scr i t obta t s beyond what contracts as such as contracts what beyond s i i i W i .O. 2006, c 17 § 13(1) ( i ht to someth hts actually do, wh nt, the buyers, not yet hav 8 S w i m for—to br ig ne on ig nt i i ndependent ndependent powers they have to g 6] P i ue : A T , 4 i nto bankruptcy and bankruptcy nto h equ S 8 i n g ates a person to do someth g enerate r enerate i ndeed already pa n any of the bottles because property because bottles the of any n nd cases l ed to purchase bottles of w that i i al r i g ig g g g s po further. lment lment of the contract depends (some- the losses that result. that losses the way, another Put s you already have, not what you have es Act, i TION n s just from a le a from just s i cular bottles of w g ll ar ll i i i d for them but had not taken possess g i g i C me a reco i n i ze and to protect our t i A n n m n i i i S i i Th r n 121. i reement to do someth al standpo AN g nterest se other g i h I w I h i 13 R g ). ably obl ffs had been CC i ” g i t, contract law reco law contract t, why T i rs. re noth g i ns on the day the tenant al Tenanc i nt ppers) Ltd. [19 i ve covenants as I w i i nsfer of Ownership n 6] P i gi i ch the fulf al orders, etc.) a cular th E IN h a ew someth ew n any part n themselves n 8 i i i ffs had arran i i t so that some contracts, b C S g n ct 3 (appeal taken from N.Z.). i i i i dent TI Tr C i S ty to reco nt reement. o ( a n v n i i i , [19 U hts g es C s med at repa s at the same t i R a i , J ig
From a le ne ” ct h the contract. i ON a to ns restr S g 16 n a bankruptcy proceed i rs—and what these le g i i ver because an a EN n hts do not do hts i n other words, allows for the poss i i B , the pla ty
Contr on has made to us ig treated as mere unsecured cred i on Wine Co i s perhaps where we end up throu vered to her. I have enson wants us to see a contractual r R i n the warehouse unallocated to any part g d i g mply does not do not does mply i B i od of a tenancy be or
n vate law, expla law, vate n i t. A contract unden n the subject matter of the contract. i i slat i i nary people to exerc i i g ETE p of land on wh i i gi P s. Instead, the pla n on to contracts, althou contracts, to on to you. e Ltd. [1994] UKP i i e London W g enson, g g Re Lon R of n red property r about that state of affa that expla n B See i n be n on Wines i i g The need for equ ed the buyers any property any buyers the ed i i g g nstantly executed and requ i d very of the number of bottles they had pa i n to you throu i t under the tenancy a n t. n hts attach only to part i i 22 notredamelawreview [vol reed to buy from the bankrupt, and i i i prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown g es for breach are a 15 16 13 Le 14 Peter i ontracts always have always ontracts ce i ate ord g ig i n relat n n n Lon Peter (2007). That that we can construe contract and contract doctr Exchan ture of pr of ture person pr a yet had del do s she when contract law, d i C are able to del acqu t r contractual i 11 ownersh th \\jc contracts accord are the bankrupt defendant and had pa a contract for the sale of property does not and cannot property term or per un have com contracts (or property, le for state of affa g br of them when the defendant was pressed was defendant the when them of i ceed del rema den r com 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 107 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 107 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 108 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 . . s c g i n 8 8 m er 19 i h) ed re- i 23 i n nty i i on. gi ons i i on, f i C i l to i i the i loss ht to ht ( g s pre- g Hunter g note i C n v) 11, 1
to h n ht trans- i i a vers g mself. i Ci i ig n n ch i i se spec i nterest i i ll leave the leave ll between the between f we fa A ( i note 6, at 9 at 6, note th the lo n favor of the construct i g i i s a s was not just a C g that the buyer ’ n i i lso supr reement for the n g 52] EWH rements and th n to h i a ke outr g i to us, ou us, to i 8 n i ts flow. In i i supr a g sa i nst the d on to perform as g See n on to hold the whole i i i i the parcel of land but land of parcel the a stent w rs and then to hold to then and rs ch 50 of the 1000 were i i at g reed-upon proport i g ner [1 shart g n i de or otherw g i ig s that one person has the the i i [1993] EW g ntent rspace dur i th what we had com se another eq: 9 12-JAN-21 7:09 i i n i S i es nty of subject-matter requ al. The d or understand i es—protect the narrower i for the loss, i i w h a hen-W th that employee, made an oral g g i g n the a g s 11 C i Express trusts, l n rely cons vert i nty of n i on of a duty constra i i i . i ntended to transfer 50 out of 1000 nstance, etc.). t d 20 i i i I on w vert or to obstruct i sfy a pr i i Lumley v. Wa ce: law cannot do any better than ntervenes to protect what a person had s ent i g i rees to sell land know i ve to another employee who had earl Hunter v. Moss ons, see i g n i i t need to know wh out how much of the result ty nterfer mpos ’ nty of subject-matter requ ent certa i i ht comprom i g i i n what we have com have we what n stence. nterest. c i n i i i ig njust i rcumstances made clear that th about a state of affa of state a about nty of subject matter on that theory of the case i i scuss i i g ned to sat trespass for on relat n lls the contract, transferr contract, the lls ig i suff i s power to d g t n a conversat h the ’ g al case of i i ll what law demands of her but st but her of demands law what ll gi ve percent of the proceeds of the sale, the employer n nto ex i sfy certa reements reements and they break them, wh g i ve foundat i i table i n i i i i nt, the breach of a contractual duty does not n g al for s cranes to pass throu i i nterest i ’ round c i nu ty of breach i nd g i s pos i l i i s on work es are not meant to protect a has always been controvers on of how equ i eller fulf eller i i b others down, by pay m for f g nt for contractual remed another S i i s called for to protect what the buyer had com i g n i g ements des t to br to t i i ke shares—we don g n n ty, throu Nor does a remedy for breach wholly protect that i i i i note 6, at 97 (d ve percent of the 1000 are—or whether the problem of certa n po s cla 8 ded by f i i ’ a s standpo i The back 1 s, l party. g llustrat to her (fulf ’ se that equ i g on of our of on g i . n g i n law, must sat n ty i i d n i i supr n I 7). i nvolve a breach by the party d i n equ on here i on of the normat es the potent , ts reason 8 i i i i or yet other means of ht i es for breach of contract––dama S s an led to do because the employer had not set as i i ” i : people make a nted). ht that correlates to the contractual obl ig i h. The poss ble th 17 ig .), lar transfer. The employer later sold all 1000 shares and kept the proceeds. ep. 6 scuss g on, i g i gi vate law remed , but i R . i ADDAM m ld a condo tower.condo a ld d . m and some months later, i at i ntervent i the employee i i i g W g sappo s found the seller a remedy cont i i on of trust. n i g i to her by constra , an employer let an employee know that he ut from equ See Take, for example, cases where a seller a n vate law st g i i i Here Here then l B ]equitable remedie ]equitable 452 (En n ved a s table i i i M K 1 ch 50 out of the 1000 shares were subject to the trust. The court found R 8 ued that the trust had never come i reed. Pr prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown 20 The well-known but controvers 19 17 For a d 1 thout an easement to allow buyer g i sely why the start ft but part of a set of arran C Y i g i expropr nterest: remed most part has turned on whether the court loosened certa fers of property r the trust clearly fa wh ments for fun trust assets but only that f of subject matter was avo employee, gi 1000 shares on trust for the (50:950). employer There would have been no and certa employee ar WL com v. Moss shares to h declarat rece In res employer and employee about h J96, 42 En Any further protect further Any be and power to comprom 202 c defected and so the focus \\jc w Equ (refus i contractual r bu to wants to empower us to comm to us empower to us accountable for lett follow throu of pr falls to the defect a “ to us that do not exhaust the ways that one person m other d what she has com has she what 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 108 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 108 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 108 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 - , , - s s i 3 i i ’ S b- : es ta- ve i ve at i M K nts i pe- i oes i on i g nto S cally cally g g vate 96 i i i n ener- Writ C Y i i f f n reater nd of g . i i i n what OLME i g i on rests n others i on. Th ses. i nt s i i H vate law i i s k i i me nteract as s shaped by i sonment. If i i ts character- ts coerc i i nd of equ table tenants i fy constra ub Pena ub i i se personal i i S certa nterest vate law dut h by actually i ty come h i al force of equ ble because the ). Holmes g i the employee i i ENDELL g ” ve percent of the of percent ve g mpr cally enforceable n rectly coerc i g i i i i f n z i i i nterest W i res from an equ on of th R table i i i ence. s not the performance s to see duty as just the i i about the very out- ff at all, but, rest i ins of the of ins table standpo er poss i i Audeley v. Audeley, 40 g ent to just g of these prom g LIVE i on by the employer (who employer the by on p between employer and , at 167, 175–76 (descr g vate actors g i i table nt c n i i i a i n O s equ nterest), the dec i n i ue better, way of look i ’ the proceeds of the sale of i protects the k t r proceeds), by means of a se to hold f hold to se zed the spec g eq: 10 12-JAN-21 7:09 i g stake i s i i i S n the context of a spec i n the context of n i on, author i See supr onsh n i i i The Ori The g , s suff on to extract over t ch pr i i s m n of arrest and s no lon i t ’ i i se h i RS s the most d i vert i i prom nt se out of a spec ve trust, protect zens to complete what pr i i i g s that the employer not obstruct the i rant to another, to name them vate law and equ i APE t i n es would have been equ on and operat personal obed to her that warrants protect h the mak g i al relat i i i or to follow throu i ence to br ate people to exerc n wh g g g P i i on or obstruct or on ar n i n res ig i ig i nd i i 1 (1921) (c AL n a pos i r c m by d i th Hunter v. Moss i on of rebell i i G res of the employer i i RS i pts c E m also found vers rectly on people, throu ses that from an equ n i d not ar i i i ss i i i i d not name the pla nt clearer than L i i APE W.M. Ormrod, W.M. t requ to h i nterest. g P i to h TED table standpo See n i al system as a whole requ g i C ht requ AL ence they demand. g n . The content of that equ i es that protect them. Whereas pr G fferent, and I want to ar ence as the only real duty, other pr i ig ve trust ty by contrast i i g i fferent funct E i i i m from d from m nterest d on to protect the employee n t to the obl i i i i OLLE i L ces attached). Holmes se that i ver Wendell Holmes reco C i personal obed ve standpo i i ssue a comm g i table r ather what as a case of construct TED to h in i n g C table R al order. i ty thus conscr , i th pr i s noncontractually b noncontractually s vate law may obl n g n the context of a spec i ned the power to comprom ’ w i i i ). Ol i ve percent of the shares and the ntervent ses are those prom a i i i ty of the le s coerc i 88 OLLE ’ n what a person has com r the very d tute the trust of the shares: that i C i t of subpoena, that d ty Equ g g i i out the framework w ons, w m (f on of a trust (the court found none on the facts) but on a spec i i i n n way (to transfer land by table g in i i i 21 z n , nte se made i i i i ch presumably employers are ty] had a form of decree requ s equ th of the L nt. i n i pt of what he had com i Hunter v. Moss nterest i i a to h ty operates much more d mself. The construct i g nterest that from an equ i i g i . 11, 11 (19 nce been sold. n i nterest and the dut i n what a person has com se to const H i s power to comprom i those powers. Equ i n wh [Equ ’ ty of the state, commanded appearance on pa i “ The P i g SC s rece sms. Thus, pr ve trust. That equ n a certa ’ i ary, etc.), but leaves nd of i lish Equity s as an equ i n R i n what he had com had he what n i i n g ons and more value from employees throu i nd of i i . i i c s fferent and more stable foot s personal command of obed i T ht, equ i i i just a set of opt of set a just S The separate but related spheres of pr table I s prom If we treat g i nterest ig i i th n cally enforceable prom c procedure, the wr 24 notredamelawreview [vol rly En prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown i i 21 Nowhere i g i nored, the chancellor would f a i n s the k n common of the whole. A wholly d st nterest E Edw. III) ( further i be i table standpo c ate the k branch of law, command comes that the because there would have been no need to separate out trust from nontrust assets: all the shares would have been trust assets. The benef i the case he had com construct contract for the creat enforceable prom employee, concess 11 \\jc focus by reco equ operates by sett of r mechan powers benef exerc table decrees and the personal obed on another on a d the content of the employer the of content the i the author ig defendant. the arrest and down hunt to enforceable contract or a le shares on trust. What that equ of h shares have s employee the shares to h 61 H i as owner of the shares reta ble 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 108 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 108 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 109 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 s s ) g i i 25 s a n an. i i ver- C i ourt table efore SCC i C on of i B n what nterest es that ourt of i i
o g i rst place C i le n connec- 24 i i zarre form cult to rec- cal case of i s well taken, sh v i i on or d i ved. To be i i i i enerates the l ff anada ( table ed. i i g g i C value that the ll turn later to chment just or nterest se b sm i p between the i i i n the f g i e to contract. A n what we have i i s d i g i n i nterest s to transfer to h s rece i v i g I w i . 3d 161, para. 26 ( s the typ n onsh t ched where there i i table i R i 26 i The En i ourt of h the enforcement of nstance, hts and pr i g C nst obstruct table eq: 11 12-JAN-21 7:09 25 nterest i ig i S i ve mechan chment a i i HMENT ldren occup g i ft, debt, trust, statute, etc., C s 11 r person), they had noth I al r i gi ved of, on the occas R s call th g i ’ N ht a cally performable contract. In r ch i nvolves rece i f i s justly enr .). upreme ig E ve to create an equ i i g i lateral relat eve throu S T i i nd of equ S i vorce proceed n bankruptcy. i i ved value from another, and there ht to the i ty as a coerc s k i d not have that value NJU i an.). i table r ig n d i A 110, (2011) 104 O. s sense i C i U n contract, C nce been endorsed by the Ontar rect, b i i i 1760 (En about what makes an enr tself ach TY fe and the R chment. Let i g i i R n th n a recent n i i i n . 303 ( zes and protects an ew, a person s form of unjust enr i i i a d i v) 1174, para. 2. s w R ht or a r i . to us makes sense of an otherw g n nk i Ci g C ig g n . ch has s i ned chment nt about equ i n Th S ll become clear that the equ i ULTIPA i i i i nterest as the spec A ( i onal v d to have been depr a lot about th 27 C i i . wh ] 3 g t w the transfer of property, for s po 8 i nvolv i on of property. n v) 1174, 3 WL 22 g i s expense i bodeau, 2011 ON ty reco i onal th , ’ i i i n II. M Ci ut i table nally had. If they d r i B rne i A ( a to us should not be seen just as an appenda igi on. H C i ched where she has rece g ndependently of contract, where the essence of the equ chment. 52, [201 i i chment outl [2002] EW i n i s for the enr i t vary. i a husband was ordered i chment, i n property that h SCC 23 i
pates pates but does not Moore v. Sweet i th convent cal reason for that enr 8 bodeau v. Th s enr i i i para. 76. c ’ . . to us the transfer, the husband became bankrupt. i d d d i s constant even as the nature of the le g g Mountney I I .A.). i ent of value and the person at whose expense on, cal bas i i n n i The account I develop of an equ I have been talk C le w ]equitable remedie ]equitable i i s ched at another p i i d i M K 1 i i ht fe certa prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown 27 201 22 [2002] EW 23 Th 24 25 26 i n the form of a property r on of what we have com i on to contract. C Y i ig i i n the property that bound the trustee s unjustly enr Mountney v. Treh Appeal held that the court order was effect i onc product of coerc however. Ont. other person or ( that they could be another sa 202 law ant contract and protect of Appeal, \\jc contexts where equ mak s of unjust enr dec w unjust. On the convent jur that accounts for the transfer of value from one person to another. A person i no jur unjust enr rec enr t we have com court order requ same form of equ com r accompany 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 109 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 109 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 109 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 - - c i p 3 i i A A : i c f nk c M K i ed i i i ved s i i i He 96 C Y on to s for nsol- i i i . tled to on to s onsh i ` nst an i a-v i could i ement 35 reed to. i t g chment i s- g C a nator of h spec i d. i ons, as a i nvolves a g nsurance nsurance g i i i i igi s v s chments: chments: a i i s a dec cal bas fe c means, led i table construc- but i i i i i ldren when ldren reed that she d nsurance pro- i i i he pa ) were marr g dent and n a pos i S et throu i A
g n the end ent cal bas cal s the or chment i i i i an.). 34 s ht to be, rather than as rrevocable benef d i C ) i sted that all i g ht to have been rece ests why we should th i C s payment to the benef the to payment s g ’ mprov gg ary i ns ht a term l d to have been unjustly i ce of the arran orally a i cared for the deceased, i ums. i eq: 12 12-JAN-21 7:09 c g
i ted econom ht to performance a i S the B C i ent of the ig B i ces and contr de for the ch the for de was then (not (not m i i ve trust over the p was i es: what you f i i 36 A A SCC i bou also su g fe A i A chments where there and ht, shaped by an equ i , §§ 190, 191 ( A 31 ig e, had not 8 g s sacr th rec enr B e.) ll can be sa ’ i a to prov to nformed by the contractual relat m for breach of contract a i i i g d the prem i ary. B C , where i i s ) and the deceased ( just s new w i c C i ched by the trustee the by ched table r valent of the r 37 i C s form of unjust enr i i i s i i Moore v. Sweet r care that ssent at the me, i i i ood fa r marr ch a person may have a jur on as ht a construct nted nted to another form of unjust enr on of the books as they ou i g i Th i i i t g on between just and unjust enr i 8 .O. 1990, c I. i f she pa oner ( 2 i S i nated h ft, debt, or some other jur other some or debt, ft, . s was a cla po the t i i R ig g gi n wh nct sou s pos i n the Insurance Act. i e broke down, ’ n i c performance or dama es the account to reflect what ou ary C i i g i st rteen years. g f to you. Th i SCC i on to the i a c g i i i ke th dea here, but on n i i i nt to nt i s not unjustly enr unjustly not s 29 i i s 40 Dur ssues of her own and very l i ft, debt, etc.) but st . but i s not the exact equ , the pet s expense. i i , the At the same t B 52, para. 6. 52, para. 4. at the expense of of expense the at ’ gi 30 ary chment 8 i table reconstruct i B n a person i c 3 i n s death, ty surchar i . ther spec i the revocable benef i ’ i cy was meant to enable to meant was cy SCC SCC C n the amount of the surchar i C
A i canpo to to es but
8 8 i n a case l B A ldren. i g i n the benef n s the remedy of account, where what the benef s the enforcement of the equ i th health i i i sabled, for th es the clear d s pol s i d out to para. 7. i i i and , 201 , 201 i . . d d A para. 31. para. 7; Insurance Act, para. 39. para. 10. para. 5. para. 11. para. 69. After After the marr chment ( t, the benef the t, Moore v. Sweet ...... Moore Moore v. Sweet ’ i Th d d d d d d d d 39 mprovements s transfer to her. ver w 33 I Moore See i I I I See i I Moore I I I i ’ es pa bly have 32 i The court of appeal and the d In In i gi ched at another cy, nam A i i 8 8 26 notredamelawreview [vol th three ch prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown ed, the only contr 39 37 3 40 36 33 34 35 30 31 32 29 I do not develop the 2 i i i on of what you had com i s the result of an equ be made to award e performance t between the part (The parallel i they are. When equ wasn but for pol vent. care the court to look upon her as a ceeds. of the ary out of pocket the value and value the between poss would rema mon w who was d d make. 11 \\jc then turned around and des ary pursuant to a prov that mudd transfer from form of unjust enr the enr enr 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 109 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 109 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 110 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 l . ” s g g n n i a ty ve t. 44 C i i i er 27 i i i s a n n on i l d i i i i i e h Hus- ood n
s ht i g who m g i g lateral n B zed) re n ig i i i i t ned the i n i Moore v. onab Had the Had , the sec- i g s statutory B lso from unjust i 42 There was ) (c a al construc- g nta ht (and the i i g h n eneral moral table r i n i ig 43 cy. g i g s estate, be s that latent i See rectly from i i n i nnocent i The court took n the support of i A 350, paras. 45–46 ve trust, unattached s i table foundat
i i i cally performable al and that a ously keep the prop- .). i ew and awarded a n a i ally reco i est g 52, para. 32 (empha- ssent 45 stence that th i i i i f g ary. It was uncon- . result i i n i c or h g i BCC table r cal case of b i gg c ent i i i a duty on A i ns on. sfactory. SCC i i
i g ement (her pay nd 8 i s 6 (En n g ht to be ma remed ’ eq: 13 12-JAN-21 7:09 i on, e. 8 S ” chment d i construct ig ve trust. i s was a remed ” i anada. These are construct es spec i ve trust i nsurance pol nsurance fferent v rily n the subject matter of the , 201 i s 11 12 C s how the unconsc i i i rteen years i s benef i from exerc R i ma n an.). mpos g ndependent equ i ence i i i ht r arran nd of equ C n i i of moral reasons for funnel pri Moore i had a (jud ned unsat ous “ ig g ve trust b i i on would have been much eas i es, A s i ndependent equ n i i 15 ( as h i i s lable on rested on the demands of i 8 table foundat i te the court on. C i i .A.) (Lauwers, J.A., d i i table foundat s i ldren that lent further moral force to C i at sted that th i ved the enr m support from What I want to su n i 07, i i i ood consc ig on of an t rema 8 s ava s contractual r ts of the i i i n rem r 46 ’ i ns . t “g ve trust i s case: i i i rd party. i s clearly not the typ C s ch R nta i ced the last th i . i i n i o. v. Teck Metals Ltd., 2016 the dec on, f C g i . i s ” C v) 1, [1972] 1 WL an. Ont. i ary obl S i ew, fe). Less obv C n th y. s that desp s case. i Ci i ty, i , however, took a d i i i R l nsurance nsurance mon nto a construct i r duc sacr i r v i F i i ht to allow another to have the property or a share A ( i nst a th ce g S g i i de for h C , had the dec ndependent equ on to award a construct chment was the SCC for the proceeds of the of proceeds the for n th i n a i N i i n the end, i i B on to ma i s C ndependent equ g zes B i table duty) that accompan i i had not rece i onab s the reco i i i s new w B f, at an
i i dently not an rounds an award of construct table foundat to her, the very same k i g i chment, th ig g n the a i g to not to an 2, para. 147 ( n cases where the defendant cannot consc n ne some sort of balanc i On the i i g g 8 v.) 1); n ts dec i gi ve trust i n n versus 41 ty at the ty i Ci i equ i requires ed i i m to take the benef pped of the burdens (forbear A 1 i r g nate h C l i i i on to prov i ma unconsc n C i found that the construct ood moral reason to cla A ( i i ig “ ns unclear whether a pure s self-ev nd of equ the breach of a f g i i C st i at chment. i .A.) (same). i or rst th . i ve trust over the s reason ig SCC C d i ’ onab paras. 51, 102. mself alone, but ou . ve trust i i para. 96. ary i . . i C had com . fe, to account to account to fe, d d c ence. In the end, the court i to be appl ums) str See i I I ple of C ew that unjust enr i i B i i “ s conduct crystall i The major The f ’ ]equitable remedie ]equitable chment M K 1 A i nc onable of h i an. prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown [1972] EW [1972] s contractual obl sabled herself and hav i 43 It rema 44 Tataryn v. Tataryn, [1994] 452 The 46 42 41 i . One can ve trust requ i i s added). C Y weet, 2017 ON C i i nsolvent nsolvent estate. A erty for h Hussey v. Palmer [1972] EW S to any preex trusts ( construct sey enr s consc benef contract, enforceable a construct w ond d the money to t unconsc the v court shrouded pr to understand even the court h sc herself had 202 i moral obl \\jc of the construct what very same k contracts and that prem power to des of case of unjust enr unjust enr 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 110 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 110 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 110 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 s ” l- 3 n n s. i A B i : i sk i ta- g i M K i ew on ons i i n i ness i 96 es to C Y i g n th s able had s the at BCC i i . i n s v ll ava cat never i B i ’ i n what ig s not a ff to her se have enerally, i ll ched i i C an.), and i i i ve trust. ty g g es used i i verted to tures typ- tures C i nt n i i mpl i on to her. i i 2016 i s protected cy, es used there mprovements mprovement i i ve trust ” i i i s of plead i at ly assumed r i the w i s correspond- trusts transferred. g i ig . 217 ( on for the pur- nterest g g s an attempt to n ple that under- i i i i i R chment n ves equ n . because i i i i n ff are d r return). Here the i es as mon C expend ve trust was st i i C vat i chment, the court . lled the obl the lled i nc ” i i i i s obl es, and also the equ S debt for i ’ ourt of Appeal took the took Appeal of ourt sm that enr nt The concept of “ i i c table ve here to reflect on C i nvoluntar 8 i i i 4 a ave the trust a 3/5 share ary). fulf i , then, i ned the pol nterest that g pronounced. ve pr i eq: 14 12-JAN-21 7:09 i A c i g s that the mon S i of the th os. i tself enforced, nor ” i on of a construct n ded on the bas i i i on to result i on for the i t nta i SCC cy rather than as rd party i i i ts that would otherw , [1997] 2 i on to the construct olumb nstruct al, construct i th trust mon s i i i es to an on of them. That has had i table i C i a s death i nator t ’ nst unjust enr C i i ar out-of-pocket i s not n sh igi a “ n relat i i c nsured) and expla i g mpos t i e of unjust enr
ment be g i s case could be understood more chment: a depr i i en over the pol or i i n relat i . The contract dr splaces even the g r g ums w C “ i i i B C cularly e of a th ua i ) d g ssue can be resolved once the pla s reco g i ple a n th ’ C e or l ted to ted shed on the bas i i et from the i i h the very mechan h the g , the , ty chment Foskett v. McKeown [2000] UKHL 29, [2001] 1 ums that ma on of benef nterest protected by way of the construc- and g i i u nal jud ched, and the defendant g ve/nonremed i i i g ls i and i i m nc chment scenar g chment the benef ht of what one person has com A i s of the a i i i i as the new benef A n s part at best a debt act g schar and i i fferent reasons, held that the use of trust mon i ig ched at the expense of g B i n al, the i A st i vers hts that was the pol i Soulos v. Korkontzil n i fespan of the i But see i i c enforcement of an equ ig s enr i so much as a normat n or to f fy i d before the trustee n the lan i f ve trust i i ve trust need not be dec fe ( i i i s for equ s not l not s i i i table char i 49 i i s ff ed throu i pr on i i on of What we ’ i i .e., substant s i eved throu i (just nt i tted). ce th i i 47 g i ve bas ums pa g to her—the i n nat i i on of the r g n i unjust enr i ig 52, para. 52. ts that would have accrued to a pla 52, para. 2. fy an equ n ff from the d ence, ” chment i i i th i i i tself. g i a very loose analys lateral form of unjust enr t that would have accrued to accrued have would that t ons om nt n on ach SCC i i i i g i SCC i
ty of construct
d some of the prem cy i ve prem n st th the role of unjust enr i 8 8 l s the role of unjust enr i i to her, where a pr i BNSF Ry. Co. v. Teck Met Teck v. Co. Ry. BNSF i i on to another. It tat i ht just That case can be d was unjustly enr i g i vat g i . n on to be plead B n ig i n i the normat i nformed cho s protect pa d lab i ’ I i g ved. Putt ‘i , 201 , 201 on of the bundles of r ood-consc two-party s: ne w n breach of trust, subject C i 3 (c i i i vers n had com “ g g ty t i 8 i s br on also captures the d i i ava i n C i s h anada after the dec i “ n l i i g C ard Moore Moore rrevocable des s that m htforwardly as the spec g vat i i dependent on facts found at tr ved a benef a ved i n The award of construct , a depr i i nst d g ig culate a mult i ly depr C 8 n i 102 (HL). There, the court, for d 28 notredamelawreview [vol a i prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown g ns equ 47 4 49 Th i had com ut the contract shapes the content of the equ ve trust. The contract between ew that a i C e g i i cal of n .e., re C breach of contract remed B to t (the of what rece owned the pol that the B stra context p art enr unjust of poses made to a preex contract between husband and w depr accrued to a pla Where those benef the defendant, the pla to make an 350, para. 11 Althou \\jc A pay three out of f the payout. i plead for v able cause of act analys ble reasons favor a the role of the contract between i i found that were taken of a delayed payout (the expected l there of the court to treat the payment of prem the acqu 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 110 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 110 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 111 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 . - S s n g C s- ty i ts in C i g T rd i i at i 29 i n S i R ( U sap- z mate i n s that R i i t to i t i on of t of d se i i th the i chment es (and T “ gi to her ma i i i g tself but ht to i n i ig contracts nsured to her by ally reco t would i scuss i ll i i g Schebs nt a person c ar cases of a i a n short, d i i n ch are unrea- are ch ent of the i 51 l i HOFF ON i i mportance mportance of i i R , [1963] NZL p fference. What i n the way of es. i i i TE ty, ts value to the th n unjust enr unjust n i S i i rbett for the benef s actually real O a a secondary reme- n the d et B ’ ht to vary consensually n the nature of trust i m cs (wh cs G g i g ff or that ary, but otherw th the result that equ i C i i i i ig , O ef that the n of what a person has shed from the c i . S i i i ht nt to her, and other con- B zed the ther that the r ht i had com n cases where the contract u i i and s contract because that as the contractual bas ig s cla s g i eq: 15 12-JAN-21 7:09 4 (N.Z.), and i on of a jud ’ C g S ig g A n NNE i 8 n ll see A I table standpo n more fam i i n g n i i s worry: that C i i rrevocable, and the benef 3 ’ and i s 11 nd e i st enerat R ther A sh a r content ldren. Equ nst olat i i M i i i i g a nsurance mon eneral bel performed the contract, she could ht marks the d g i reco was n the present case both part g B i ht a C on e HELL ig nated benef t does mproper tact mproper i s ch B n the way of i C i ig i i r common law r ig ble to f to her: i
i IT SCC g ht be d t of g se h the v i s the i n i n g ig i i on of what a person has com h once [1963] NZL i & M g ve the nsurance money—and was left w mary r i m mposs ett s protect i i ttle doubt ts terms. In such cases, there may be le RS i ’ i ved from ved i able channel for the flow of g i E ch from an equ i rbett ff has some s contract, stand ty i de for h com B i i a i i g to her nt would not breach h n i ht to be treated as the proper rec 50 i was unable to establ g HAM A s contractual r ig n nvolved contracts between on below that the C ’ I have l i i for the benef kely be ument of the same structure succeeded on the bas i
eved throu i “ . C . t ve trust, just as ve equ g i C In re G B T m . . . as the des i i i d ty standards, etc.) that m i n what a person has com ch R cally performable. We w i I s on wh i i i the court calculated what ll l i E i f B i ” table r O and i Moore v. Sweet table construct t w ty of breach i m or her. on to prov R , an ar i A on. i i n the value rece value the n i ture even on mutual consent of 52, para. 47. i , i l i n wh e wrote: oth cases i ntended to keep al on of the subject matter of the contract, w i ht, not as the pr at nstance, i at i g B i b rbett nterest i ig r compet a ig ig i s not just a matter of the terms of the contract SCC es to revoke or vary i i i HOFF nsurance money was ever held by the pla
G i vers R 8 i er equ –type cases: al or equ g TE ” fference between th g ht to reta to ht d to have someth S i r i s of course was the court of appeal i table O , the jud i olate commun n effect spec ig , 201 t of that contract—the i i i i n Moore v. Sweet, a world away force, fraud, and otherw ve that g g i ht to have named h to her ma ontrast, for ht but as the bas n n g cally performable contract. The g C H. O i i Moore i ig res a lar reement between T f n nly the debtor) nsurance money, i We can see how i ]equitable remedie ]equitable i g i R i rece have accrued to h In other cases where the pla ou has no le ts return. In sance and fa M K nted he 1 E i Schebs i i s contractual r B prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown zed moral obl al r 50 51 A person may not rece i ew that what she has com ’ i i L C Y 0 (9th ed., 2019)). i n the form of a construct C A In certa the terms of the obl breach could only be ach n counted the poss assum the benef v 8 the subject matter of the contract althou r her defend for the a was not subject to forfe 202 i spec d could be sa \\jc allows for the part reasons for the d should not look at the contract as a rel party. assum sonable, v flow. In 390. po marks the d for an equ tracts? Th would be nu com requ 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 111 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 111 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 111 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 s s 3 g i ’ : ty er i M K ap n i i ty g i 96 cally C Y ht had s not table s not table table mply ht of i on to . what i i i i i i f i C i ig g ig nterest ts flow. i n other ts s s s ct i n out of a of out i i i i i who has g de to per- ble for an i B the use of i nequ s equ n on se on of what i ’ i i i i g or to sell s nst the cove- C i i to her. Th n i table r
ke i of spec i g i a c performance g g i ct vers n g f i n i i n i i mposs ll leave the cove- i olate commun i to have the very ht ar ht i i b ty cannot allow to ty refuses to coun- i i i C ig ecause breach to us. to her from equ sk of render B i ts to the covenantee/ ed for pr g g valent of the we i ated, and who and ated, cally performable con- i g n effect nonbreachable n n i rd party l i on or d i i eq: 16 12-JAN-21 7:09 f i i S ig i S for spec tself (as a t table r table i i i g The value of the covenant the r n s after all just an equ se the flow of benef em to be seen as i lure of the other s g i i t would be i understand 53 g ’ was the flow of what n “i i B n spec nst a th i i ve covenants cases, and OVENANT ff ask a i i t move that equ C g i to ct
ses ncurr i t strata nt c f we understand to you. Why? i i be the equ the be C i i i i i be what g s just a way of descr c ll i i th the power to comprom i vert what she had com red to protect what the covenantee had covenantee the what protect to red i n sts a i i i i TIVE i ll ll the covenant and st nst the obstruct the flow of benef i i nterest as the equ C ts to a person that equ i i I g i a te the clear fa R thout n restr n i g i i i T on ty treats contracts as S i .). ty allows that you have an expectat i E i ve trust g t w i ch the pla i ded by the covenant R ht a to descr i i th the result that ht to what we have com ” i ig s power to comprom ig ’ verted from i nterest that ar i the court enforced a covenant restr ce of the covenant. The court addressed the n wh III. i i 52 the land on to another. s, a r , i se represent an g y ht of the covenant he had arran h) J34 (En on prov i ve trust i nterest that pers a n i C i i ig h table makes sense, then, h breach, desp i ( another x g g C n l to her by anyone w s of course matches the lawyers i n i th the flow of benef g i n that case w nvolve the r i i i n n nd of m i i ht to what you have com i i nary contracts, equ t. What was d i ig ] EWH construct . i 8 “ d nant tenement holder a call for performance. i 4 nt. Th g i nd of equ 8 Tulk v. Mo mply by sell to her. to construct The to h enerally: that i i nary contract cases always an n the way of a person and what she had com n cally performable contract for the sale of land, the equ g g g i i i See i n contexts where breach would be unreasonable, v s the k i nated throu i i f n n i Moore v. Sweet In In ord e of table r i i i ce of i s i g i ht that another not obstruct nor d ht constra 30 notredamelawreview [vol prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown 52 [1 53 i ig ig n ord nterference w s meant to assume the posture of a person whose contract has not been r r descr to term the used have courts new: com usa spec the dom contexts that com the land: the covenantor could fulf sold land. In that case, the buyer had sold the land free of any restr someone who had not between the protect requ be would what and only) nantor not would be lost owner of land to sell part of 11 \\jc but does not treat that expectat same k tracts she has com Th performable contracts, nantee underprotected, obstruct equ i i i term m be to stand that losses no suffered has who form, renew seller s tenance. Put another way: equ only standards, or otherw stand standpo 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 111 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 111 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 112 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 S 1 g n al T i sts nk 3 i n i S on i inst i i U ree- s, by bun- ga R table g ’ ment “ s way, s i i g A T n what se that vers n some n s i d i al real i i ’ ue of the on from n cular g i n the represent- de other g i i a ve trustee i ” hbor ts core an i s i on AW OF i g ig res of her to cks een th een tuat nly i i ) (appeal taken L i i ht of the con- S ’ cally perform-
i C nterest f nce for a controvers charter a ig on or d RS i s ne i hts protected by protected hts i by the le the by i g 56 (P 57 g ma ig , n t. 8 ATE i i s form of equ of form s s bundle and added to hts, not a fra i ’ ed alon o ty helps ensure that i i 10 s connect s g ig nvolves at , W table i fferent s i i C l Co. n spec i n what he had com bundle of st of bundle i s already under char- i a i “ [T]he true analo ce of ce table r table eq: 17 12-JAN-21 7:09 i t.Th “ i S i MITH on, ch S i n use of h i
i n a d table r s 11 se ent owner Specific Perfor i i i n the n i i p to be used for a part
nant tenement owner i ” i : an equ th not th on nterest inion Co p wh i i i IONEL ). i o. [1926] A ck ” i m njunct s ct C i enerally stud ce of an on mmers of th of mmers ’ i 5 (1904) ( ty protects st i i i g 8 l “ . Ames, & L g oal B n a sh ve covenant, equ J. C i i t, then he appears to be pla was extended beyond covenants over 55 red the sh i able duty, one that travels to whoever i ” ILLEN ct nterest w nterest i See on i th not i ty can stand hts i G i . 174, 1 i th
ht was a was ht n ot i nal covenantor but also any successors ig i K Tulk EV g ig ve covenants, overtaken by a later tendency to th R Moore v. Sweet i ally easements, we have lost s R A i igi p w n at least at n on to the dom ct ship Co. v. Do i nterest equ i i i i ch requ t se the se ke i i , M a restr i i table form of easement, pushed alon c of . L. am i g RS V s bundle. s attached to the property by the owner, no one stently w ’ gi i n R h a ne i i o. v. Dom A g s land of the restr ve covenants and other equ other and covenants ve Ste ons to the charterer: ATE C i i on by whoever had the power to comprom When a vendor does what the law requ ty i a hts wh ve covenants are i i . i ct S at ig i . 54 ew of restr n to the ce of that equ ct i ncons i S ” mpos i i n cases l ig i i , 17 H i s the note payable to bearer. ew that the use-r the that ew s v i i thcon t to h ct ’ i a hts, and espec a res from another r ve covenant, enforced by W.M. W i i to her, protected by a duty of nonobstruct ncluded the or haw concluded that the purchaser was a construct ce of r ig i i es.rema There hts or an add g S ct s not empty. i f an equ Str th not i th obl i sk by n i i ig i i d i l case, the lo ts obstruct i , the court protected the seller ed the v the ed i trathcona w g reement
nterest ak S 5, 560 (4th ed. 2012). ONOVAN i Lor g for g p w th not 8 g i i “
s was Ames D ve covenants as an equ n Lord i n i i ecause restr .). nant tenement owner ns worthless. Tulk . . ve covenants are best understood as equ i ounc i i i S 8 d d ct s protected throu ve a B able dut able i See I I i i 5 C i
ct ers to the Contr on between restr between on m: the benef In The restr i ct table ]equitable remedie ]equitable i g i If a man acqu ter, w purpose and not i i ” ot ate that r ANADA M K 1 n al property r vy 8 ht property and that had been moved out from the serv g g C i a prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown 5 57 Lord 54 55 56 Th g g i
C Y ig nterest. That nterest, mposed on one who has the power to comprom to power the has who one on mposed n from N. restr of the sh cases. In restr of property r dle. le nect ne 202 he reta \\jc Pr land to the purchase of a ment. sh the party from whom he purchased. of restr encoura who i the dom Str equ ne the covenant to h IN able contracts and prevent i i purchas one has com i r comprom to power the bears 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 112 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 112 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 112 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 - - ” l- 3 S g p g i : se I ve ce i ke ta- ht rly i i M K i i n i i R on- i her U ig 96 dow. W table C Y g i n i n the “C J i But see i . ty n land n lso hts l i i i to her: s a trespass s a fa g al r i tt [1976] ig i [1972] 2 g i s exerc n g on nued tres- ’ i i the i ., unautho- n enda and ns See i QUITY ht to reco g nadequate. g n terms of a g i i 12-JAN-21 7:09 n ig ct the w E i cally enforcea- cally nu i s z i i nterest HEM i hbor i table r f i nd of equ n the context of context the n i i i c i ig njunct i te r s ve covenants, the i T i t ’ to refer to equ i E ON i ned an a ” i S ct ourt of Equ g from exerc i on of ownersh TO i t, and at a lower pr lower a at and t, n C i . Equ ht to ev i O2 G ) (cr h a ne EATI g h an , Hubbard v P dow had com
at 70, 72–73, 77. . 8 mpose a blanket duty to i g R cat g ¶ 4.01, ¶ 4.307 (Andrew O1 Binions v. Ev . 8 i g g i s unhelpful here when all al remedy d ve trust n these contexts i n i i
i ch a g AW out of spec of out th i ” on for a cont i eq: 1 n nd i g th the property. OMIN i i S L i sance, repeated trespass, and See i n ., A T i See, e. i C on or contempt: others do R s
i e of sett i ee also trust s w s death. The seller sold the land m at the lack of a comprehens on, protects a future flow of g “ –09 (200 se that flow. ’ S , J i i g n the context of a vendor of land, nu i i 8 tted throu se to respect to se IVATE L.J. 590 (1916). A cont njunct ve trust g n i i ons wh i i AVE i R OY construct i we see most clearly most see we ple, the purchaser n ut yes, these are a k “ i R i g 50 P e of at B s favor. ALE n reement w ’ H g ht constra H nc i ig i g S those ar those AW ig s not a v n char OME njunct RS ua g i i s enforced throu LI ate. i i i g sance, too. L dow pr n P G i i i sm takes a ly comm , 25 Y ” that connects the restr i i N , para. 34. nst usurpat TY c g i 8 se E i R WNE th obl i t n a i TON table r i i t nu i i g R 10 reement between a seller and purchasers to allow in O nclud OPE O vert or destroy what the w , i g C i nts, someth nts, n the w R i i dea of construct
ty a N ns on the land) or a repeated trespass (e. ll prevent because the le i 59 ” P i i i e as per the a sance cases can also be expla HAT ht-holder for deal § 1359, 2697 (3d ed. 1905). Once we have sorted out i y work out why an g ne of cr ig S g reement and a prom a and reement i al use and enjoyment of her land—by enjo s someth to us, to OHN i sance cases g s also appropr W i ty w EOF i i g i ree that the lan class of torts embrac R olate. n “ p puts owners i g i tory or Prohibitory l Principles ve trustee w i n nu ve trust s) pt after prom , [1926] A i ht and duty that i i i a TU g dea of an equ da table r C EMEDIE i ig n the form of an i n ce of a of ce n i i eted constra eted th the land (as we know well U E AND R n nu i es n the house after her husband i a
i g i nterest that extends beyond the scope of the le i R ch equ rece C s mater i i s to a T ’ on that rema “ m to v ourts frequently use the term sance. 4 J i LE Gener i ty, g S s w i ve trust for the purchaser). : ve i s the B on of author on. After purchase, the new occupants sou i C
i AN S.S. Co. g i se of her power to comprom i ch concerned an a i on i i S table r a t n t h i i th not th construct i ct ke tar ke i i HE i hts. Others can comm i “ i on that there UI i ig Equ to nu , T QUITA thcon Property approach). That l equ .), wh cat a ” i E g , g on of an 60 dow to l nvoked .). ous exerc from the i . i i g n g njunct tself. Ownersh g g i i i LANE nd Injunction—M n Str 61 reement for sale, etc. i table remed lo i n on of a construct sance belon sances are usually but not necessar R IV. N d s i i ses. No, these are not real trusts because they do not s w i i i g a i ’ ’ A s t p powers so as to obstruct or d ly boundary cross ty EAND i i n i i F i ve covenants. ts—the owner C a ll not perm Lor i C i i hts to what we have com have we what to hts 70 (En ve Trust wadl i s The Equ s really ct nuous trespass, wh S R i pos w i ig i i M sance context, we can by analo 142 (En hts that have a common nature and structure and that courts are qu s operate more l more operate s hts ar i 32 notredamelawreview [vol prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown UDEN 60 Nu 59 61 Nu i ze. The repeated use of the same i B omment, zed da urrows ed., 3d ed. 2013). I a EN i am R ig ig i mportant i stricto sensu All E the seller w purchasers the to to reflect the restr pass that ownersh the use and enjoyment of the cotta th restr r ble ble prom account for all deal subject to a construct r n i B cont C after an a struct duty to account to the equ l the underly The court found a B benef another r author 11 \\jc nu the protect P (a structure or obstruct r of her property r Q protects that pos 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 112 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 112 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 113 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 - s s s s g i g ll n i ’ ’ g al i i ce 33 ta- n n i g i i i L.J. hts, kin arlos o s the r— a 61–67 A 135 ig i C i c off c g
mpor- 8 sance, t i ple of i t of an i i s off h d autam v. i ’ ure out ONTO hbor See g n s equ p r G n what she what n ’ R BCC i enda w a able duty nc 19, i ig ig i i O g 8 . n a doctor ot nce i ty adds g a Whereas the an.); EV i U. T C R et 8 nterest i 63 i on. An owner ht reasonably be i cular a s , 5 , i ’ sance counts as a tak- ownersh ig i table character—even w 13 ( i se another g a tself—to f zat i i .U. L. i n n terms of protected enda. i i B g on the nuis SCC 6 ht d eq: 19 12-JAN-21 7:09 e zed nu 8 enda for her land. her for enda i S vert what the owner has ty moves beyond the pro- ig h a more thorou g m i , i oes beyond what the le ned to a formal pr g s a matter both of the use i w ples of common sense and s meant to follow from the i g ts that m a Trans. Auth., 2020 g s 11 i i a hbors, passersby, publ passersby, hbors, ffir i i of an owner an of a n n that locale for what would enda. A person can have full .). g i ig i nc g s L 65 g ons: what counts as a nu a as counts what ons: n i i i g on, i vacy at home, qu rtue of hav i i an.), olumb kin thout thout author i a nterest C C ons of the flow of the benef the owner. What equ i al pr s not def i pr i clusivity in Property L Property in clusivity 52 (En s a tak a s derat ty to set the a ( i ty to set the a the set to ty T g n v i i i i w s et, a flow of customers, clean a x ood that 8
i g 8 sh d i i t n i th her use and enjoyment. Here as g njunct g g i o (Transp.), 2013 i n E n t i i i i i n d a vers n sance law, equ on of benef r overnment-author i i i i i n to her (a new owner of the ne 203 g ned accord B on: a i cons g h. D. i The success of any part l nce s capac s n C ’ a a ty to set the a i i rcumstances rcumstances extraneous to the owner an.). 62 i n nu oast BCSC i C s enjoy nterest, of a fundamentally equ ts be secured throu ve author teri n why C i i i s def i i clusion ons by others—ne by ons i es, wealth from other sources, and most . t i rtue of be x ef i ons or d i S s i i ma to her. Th t i n these cases takes the form of a ne E nvokes mater i 79] 11 th the th i i i 13 ( i g l 8 i etary n n v i ty awards an nterference w i i ty i i i ., peace and qu on SCC enda for a th i n law ve rel enda for her land, not usurped by anyone else, and yet uarantees. The g s exclus g al benef i i on or obstruct just compensat just entre Ltd. v. Ontar ’ g i i g t Inc., 2015 g i C man [1 ssa Katz, ssa autam v. or custom at a truck stop. n al outcomes. i i g i ht G r ht that others not obstruct or d d 64 i
vers i , 2013 ch equ ig i r i ig tself Lar nst obstruct i njunct the owner already has B i i ons—e. of the land and the standards ntervent g lly i a i d Trans g s a n what she has com i g n h ht i i s i n Truck m Truck g ’ i i room, ap es v. ig m to her—a propr ty standards—external to the property r ener on cases, equ g g ty R i i g s account helps to expla g ). i i t s on wh n on a on of the formal author n 8 to her depends on i ty, the r ty to set the a ty to set the a i tion issue by i The Curious Intersection of Nuis i i i s dec tur i i i es or mater ne g a when they deal w ’ Antri See i S i t g n s mak Throu Equ i nterest ]equitable remedie ]equitable i on of the owner i i all, i v M K 1 pens i of property requ property of t does not take or destroy the owner the destroy or take not does t B enda, whether that benef ll suffer the d an.). i prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown 63 Th 64 65 62 g i als, etc.). i m an. L C Y g i C n 275 (200 (2006); Antr C co ( i has com as A. com the bas she count as unreasonable compet commun core property r author always depend on powers and c (such as her personal ab dec purposes, my for tantly c tect protect 202 wron \\jc st property r owner not someth nor can these mater protect author that falls to anyone who assumes the power to comprom ble what an owner has com a consult author act expected to flow to her 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 113 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 113 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 113 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 . g 3 g ); ], n n d : ty ht th i i ” n I i i M K ] 2 ] ch tor n i to hts i i i l ig 8 the i 96 g C Y g ig . n 52) 21 on of ples of n i i al r i s newly i at 504. 8 i . ree w t g n i on (the cally per- d g to her i nc i i nd here s mant sold I cated that on. The i hts, as f ty, wh i ) i i t i g i i ty standard i i t v. Hoskins i f the com- n i ig i at 505. The i HY nd . i le I a n pr am d i i I n m i W table accounts s not a le enh i .e., the preva i lway on h on of property property r lway on the defen- i s value. i onal complex d i i ’ i g t that the compet t i AND i Bo g n s n the conveyance. i i nary commonsense. i n 66 i 47). The cla r ht). Wh r compet i ( n i radock (No. 3) [196 3) (No. radock i i ne what, 8 i ig to the pla C s quarry. s to be expected, for g ’ ons i i ). n h. 1 t HEM i 8 eq: 20 12-JAN-21 7:09 property i nterest. It on of a commun n, ord p. I have S i C i g i b i i T n ples and standards to work odenham v. Hoskyns (1 i i ty standards, on makes compet s framework for evaluat B i i n at 502. The deed ’ olat
th the power to obstruct or i . i TO i rd party g nc ht. It d accord i ty i ., referred [ I onsh ‘ i n nterest or r G s v i i i ld a wharf and ra ig i C i ht that correlates to a spec . 215 (191 es w ig S on of a wharf and ra i L.J. 2030, 2034 (2020) (expla i zed n the proh i h. 502 (N.Y. i s open to all comers. Equ ew of what a person has com OMIN i i U. s constructed (as equ C ty standard but deny ubber Ests. Ltd. v. Ltd. Ests. ubber ALE th C i i 8 table pr i
R rst possess i ) the procedure for the acqu i on as a procedure allows for a certa s v i hts, confronts an add n order to determ i cular ’ nk that th on of a protected i i t d i i i on and. ig ty rd part ted i AVE ndersley, V.- i i i ty standard about what counts as acceptable strat- S ned by commun t i s terms, one or the other would have had en i the erect equ i i ’ n a procedure for acqu , 129 Y d nteract. Equ g i g s H i rd party to bu tors ty g n i i i table one, a r n i s on an open pathway to property r to her rules out force, fraud, and unreasona- i i th t RS i i i or Un or g b g i n s procedure enda another owner has set). chard K i ated Press, 24 i the way to the r i oed-Thomas, J.) (quot g ht to s determ us possi g Ri g i tably constructed account of fa g on of a commun elan r n has any part i i r compet m on: compet S i i s conduct came w property or reduce the adjo i table construct s context at any rate, are just pla They are to be understood where equ i Si i i g “ ni ke other procedures for the acqu i n 67 on proh a olat petition Wron on. The law of f i i i , OMPETITO ch i .) (Un me. i m n on of a commun i g n th i C i .)) ( ty alon i
th i ntervenes ntervenes to protect what a person has com g ht to allow a th tors ou Co i l i i ts of an a that th g i i erv. v. Assoc 8 olat g tor has com i S n an equ njunct 6 i to compla i i on can occur w n to wh HAT
eymour v. McDonald, 4 i ples, i ’ g nteracted on equ rant, etc.), th i t n order to transport stone from the th g S another he owned to the defendant. i rst possess i i n ty hts. Unl g i g 73 (En , i i n nd s unreasonable . nc i i es by fellow compet i ornell, INS v. AP 8 i n ig g i rst possess C ur e. gi ty also i n terms of a v to the adjo l News mportant part of the story, I th i i ’ ” i ,
V. W 64, ig ke to her. i g 8 ve g ompet See i What n 1073, 1105 (En n s shaped by an equ de of any contractual or property relat colas h. red land C Equ s protected, but rather an equ s land, f table account of fa i gi i i R i i s an i ’ tors had i i C i 8 hts (sale, 34 notredamelawreview [vol prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown y vert the benef N 67 Int 6 66 i rst to capture w i ornell that the v enerally are) ex post facto, us g ig offens i n cases of f cf. court upheld an dant the purchaser could not use the lot as a stone quarry, or “ for any purpose that would be The defendant sou acqu a court of equ and these pr a lot border L.J. at 507. t the of sense common All E formable duty on the part of the defendant. wron 11 property, but also tenants and th d \\jc her equ where more than one person cases of f f outs cases, l who has stand C e ends up f that what a compet ble strate pet com amount of volat g out how compet property r r protects the pathways to property r i 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 113 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 113 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 114 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 - t s g i g n n i ’ ty f se i i 35 ke i n i n i on on on to i i i i i i s; the t t g i i i ht to table g nute. n i i i es l n ig ne has i vers dent i up the i on, free on, i i g i At that t ke th t compro- t nterest n i i hts. al r i i i c property a duty not 70 g sh l i c ig i i property f g , the person s rather pro- ty standards. ck i on, an open i i g i i ll n i n on where the r compet i i cular, i t i i n i i i love. re le able duty not to nto the pos the nto r i i i g i s what we can say s record-break so preserves the i nt of catch i spec n cases l ot i s r compet r g i g table remed i i mpos g on of an the f i i n s i n i g t i g tor at the last m n the marketplace. It i i r i to her from d olated no commun mself n ntervent i property r i i i i n n h g i g eq: 21 12-JAN-21 7:09 g , 2002). ty s n S i on of h n ’ i 8 n do ut here h a ne i i v on by i n what she has com i r i g ty wron B to her such that another i i n the mob. It t i olate commun s 11 i i g i g n n i s reco i ’ c ew of what a person has com i i t. Dec. 1 ty i on cases, equ C i ns equ doers m down before he could complete ems, Popov, and Popov alone, had t i nterest i rst (and so to acqu i g g i from act i ts to herself, counts as counts herself, to ts i g h a framework of fa of framework a r compet s up. i ’ cally enforces what a person had com- g n g able duty falls on Hayash S ems that v i i i f n n g Popov was on the po i i : he personally v i a. s second form of compet s not pol he could to put h tor ot i i g i C g g 69 . n onds on the occas ty enerates a v i i g B s th n what she has com i i shi ne that a person near ll be passed by a compet m, tak i on by others—and i ty spec a i i those prof those i tably constructed framework of fa y nterest expla i on 33731 ( i g i a at 8 arry t nt: assum nt: i n s i i i to her, protected throu on to capture the ball. i B i g t ve trust reflect equ d no wron i i ts or value not yet attached to any part i n nterest nterest rst). Equ i i i i i vert ts flow on whoever now has the power to comprom i on as a procedure for acqu ts or value result m. Equ i s d f i , who was not part of the mob, ended up p i i ke th ’ i ty determ i n t s case, that ne i the race to capture f g i i i i ts flow to her. l g i n tself to the actual wron i tor i Popov v. H r compet g n i i ew of what a person has com i n that framework of fa i n to h nterest. In these compet i i i s compet g i n, where the arc of the ball ended nn s for prof i s v th n i table standpo table i fraud, force, and strata i ’ i Hayash i Hayash 2. 1. on or expropr i * * ty . My ma i n th 71 72 on on for prof i de of the context of a procedure for acqu ty also protects a compet g i i at at ometh i i m w bsent nto the stands by t t i n on or construct S i . . . i i s context that an equ i a i a compet i ty of compet of that d d d t se of a power, d power, a of se i I I I g i n fact completed the common-law procedure for acqu i g nterest. In th r i vert or obstruct i Equ ]equitable remedie ]equitable n i n g i i M K 1 to h ves equ hts. n th s i prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown i g i vert or obstruct 72 71 69 No. 400545, 2002 70 WL 31 i i C Y ig nstance, nstance, that a frontrunner w n nte s njunct the ball by captur does not address tect moment, a mob jumped on h the catch. 202 i How then can equ \\jc her outs r ball and so w the ball). standard equ an from from force, fraud, or unreasonable strata the ball com i to d that ball h run.home everyth done had He or obstruct i dr exerc m suffered a loss when another completes the race ahead of her? An equ framework for fa to her Take the case of compet able th compet i who he was now i what a person has com d 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 114 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 114 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 114 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 - - 3 i i n : A ve ce ll. te 76 i sh : i M K i i i on th- ht,
i i i ver- L.J. 96 i C Y ig . 660, g” stricto t had vior bus . i strat n overn- a g i ALE slat EV i s r g n desp oodw R n tself. As i s pract i gi i i ’ In trad 217 (HL) g g n common- o tak i C n an “ n g i 73 i anada case, . L. i cal assets. , 35 Y v ” c i tive Beh e i table presump- i ch C a i shed channel shed i The , or even any i c, adm s a oes some way i zed that am i g 8 i ed the transfer. g i OLUM 7 The n n n the enactment of i inistr C i n effect the d the effect n 2 g n N i s not property has th a monopoly on 8 g i ts phys i hts, wh dm es clearly lacked a i ent equ on were rerouted to i i ourt of ndependently of the i ig ll ons , 53 i A i i s not property, but an n custom. t as property, notw on. C i d i i i .). n s ll was ll will slat th on w able th ll g eq: 22 12-JAN-21 7:09 a sher i i i i i d S g i accompan h the establ the h f an.). ne, Ltd. [1901] A gi i i g table r n g i oodw C i n ar i g stence that property usually ll property, be the nature of th i g i i zen relat ness and i ht of as property Equity oodw i ly treat orporat oodw t upreme dent i g g . Turner ed., 2016). g i S C on of the anc toba F orporat “g i G t, or unless there i n . 101 ( ble th i i n the context of publ ture of Goo s Mar C R i cott, bus of ’ oodw a . gi i cat ), where the sale of a phys i g g g nt, al and equ C o. 8 469, 471 (En ew that ty i . i i
n g n arded as capable of surv shed customer base. C S R rown i i i g g bility in Gross of A Forei table nature and structure of ff after the le C OODWILL n i 367 (P. a i ncreas h Man rown i n the case, operated a freshwater f i n i sh what we already have (property g G C g i nt s tak s ve force that br i ’ onal v u i to us. The i g mothy End a t ATION i g 60) 54 E i (Iowa 191 g R n 8 t was not thou n ts own i 8 VI. s of both le T le call i s now re , [1979] 1 n i i i S i i g ty and separate ex vely equ st R , The same customers who before the le i i i n nvolved an appl Althou i ll c g i i i th respect to any rs v. Muller & —The Assi th an establ 79 0 f n i ’ i ” wh i i ton (1 nct 8 stence apart from DMINI i on g i i 77 s a vocabulary to descr the attract sh. n overnment s st , i nk te the fact that no tan A will i i i “ i lso An Inquiry into the N i ed to ensure proper state-c t cannot therefore be dealt w hten). i The trad g on. d se of the underly i i oodw a omm ht w i g i on creat dd ht to the flow of custom throu custom of flow the to ht g i es Ltd. v. C , 169 N.W. 3 i enerally, see T 74 i ig on for tak ood example of a protected channel for the flow of value. ness w sh from the pla Goo see g ” i ig i i s dec “ g i t. es, the appellant slat i The i the d sher r f ll lack i n the customers themselves, the court reco i g ble 1 gi ble desp i i s a i 8 a QUITY AND i . n . Th orporat evenue i more E 8 8 ll. sher g C ll R ht i i rket i Indeed, ty or dem n ons was appl in a i i s not a r else: a r a else: s flow of custom to i ts label, so as to d ig toba F i i i v i ht the Rowe v. Toon , g i Fisheries v. R at 10 at 104. at 103. ct 75 the lack of spec g i at 11 ry n .) (Lord Macna a ll . . . . . g i a obertson v. Qu i g ee d d d d d oodw neteenth-century neteenth-century court put the po on. For an account of the role of equ sd oodw rown n I I I I I See M i i R S i g i res. toba F ) from what we have com ent onmak nact i G i C i i dent to property; s nitob ts slat i i 1 2 0 8 i 36 notredamelawreview [vol a prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown mm 8 8 79 8 77 Man 7 74 75 76 73 Inland i oodw gi on of th onal common-law th xed value, but rather on of just compensat i i i mport-export bus nc i M t law jur le dec Co 673 (1953). was deemed poss 496, 499–500 (1926); 224 (En s toward reveal Man i stand requ t one n i property, or have any ex ness attached to softened: for many purposes, courts the What courts st whatever sensu 11 \\jc G f property r had bou ment passed le the sale of freshwater f someth the of 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 114 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 114 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 115 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 t ll i n s- s- i i 37 ns. c
i i gi gi ada off g ness ood- lar to f the g n i table table i , 2005 n i i i n the g a i ht n i et- h pro- on or Fisher- s a i m i i oodw
i sappro- g st g tions Plc ig a ness i i i g g on— a y C y i ht g n i n e Corp. tes s vers i ig i g i
st nitob ven bus n i unic ” , a name, but -Gei a a vely equ gi g a i edly m reasons for an.). ch r and equ M ned pass n g i i mm x g i C n the bus Cib n i nst a party that had nct nked recovery for i i i e E i a s property at all): i st ht are made expl g ke i am tes cons i property i of what the appellant the what of on as to the nature ig “ i g th on. . . . [I]f the r n i g n i nvolves a d nued uses of those doma eq: 23 12-JAN-21 7:09 nk, stron in N i i i S i n ht to a th i power of a para. 2. . 120, 132 ( that flow to another ma ig g . n the mark, name, or ranted a g R s 11 British Teleco i n the amount of compensa- . d g n i shtelecom.co.uk). The re n I i 3 C i t to be only fa i . or of value already ex t i 8 ts cont larly n Do s of the r i S i ty of op i ” g n call
a i ll. g ued that the use of webs . i i i g t, of a case l case a of t, n ]. g 8 zed that the purpose of the re m i stered webs n i vert nk n i i i i g i ad i srepresentat t gi ., br n n s not a r vers on was t: the flow of custom throu i n anada case that l i on i i i i i on appears to be that the r a table form of i g g n that context, as b i nn i ourt of Appeal expla oodw C i i i ll s I th on that the name alle n g i i i C . at 11 “ tat ll i R to i ts s the subject of what are known as pass- . n.or i i g njunct sh C on and draw i proh es say property i . gi n i i ” on was not the tak the not was on nt, I take I nt, l i S on of a th r t i i oodw ch i i i g i s hes derable d g ourt of vely equ i ’ oodw at i on of i .). C i a successfully ar G ., v i e wrote, eneral op g ch value flows). In s protected
i at i g i g i nct 5 88 etybc.ca i ew naturally demands an answer to the quest i 8 njured by the m table underp i i tch i st s the po the s th the threat of d the En i tted). i i ll. ew. i ll] should be reflected on of wh 7 , [1979] 1 on of olumb s v i i h wh i i . Ri w Society of B.C. v. C i i s 8 the reputat t had com C i d , a g i n that case had re ome author “ s d . upreme at i i L lawsoc S v) 61 (En i d ce “ S sh n names amounted to a takeover of a protected channel i nvas i i i Th t Ci on om i oodw red compensat red ht of property at all, there are, I th oodw off to a demonstrat i i r 4 ( names (e. g , a g g an. Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., [1992] 3 8 ig B R Thus, what g kely to be and tat n i C i ” i n 6 i y 8 ons. The more Fisheries Lt the latter v ll l i n what? Inc. ” ht, the i s a r ig i a g on. Just n a protected channel (and so the name as the anchor of an.), where a permanent i x e i ety of i d not pay up. The court reco n ig i C Million Lt i s i G i lsbc.ca a trad “ oc at 76 (c on of the channel for the flow of value—a d ’ nitob n terms of th There appears to be cons i at 134. S oodw mproperly used by the defendant. Others say, property i ba- a . . s loss [of vate appropr i xed form. xed -off act n what follows the court ee, for example, i i g d d ht of property. Th i ffs ffs d i I I M g S Ci i i ig nvaded n The defendants Pr ]equitable remedie ]equitable property i preferr up or of the r i r on of the doma on was A 535 ( nterest nt nt ons i i stered M K ts market. 1 i . v. Apote i i ated attracted i 7 [1999] ETM 4 5 6 3 s case that requ that case s i i , was understood as i ll, the channel throu prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown d 8 88 8 8 8 8 gi i i on awarded to the appellant [for a tak C Y i nterest—and not the appropr n n the dec ts own amounted to an appropr the tort of pass pr BCC re The Law Lt obstruct i f some i 202 th \\jc an w v. One in act (note already had but what tected channels. The equ pla trat for the flow of custom, w ies i i that th t pla trat 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 115 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 115 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 115 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 3 t, n A : ty fe es i i de i M K i ary i i i v. 3 n a i 96 i C and C Y d table 9 g . i t. To nated A 8 a l A i n dent i , Pyle by s not a g ve trust i ig nder to . i , should , i i ved at the ntended g n i i ely outs i B cal terms, ter put vor to for- g v i s i i i reement con-
gi vor of g See, e. i C s benef ll not be ll ’ i i dent ther trad i se wr i i 92 ssue lar reement presup- nstance of equ reement i ” ll so as to prevent i g the rema s w i g i g nterest to nterest 16 (Wash. App. D s caused by ev reement between i i 8 n g i nder to a des ll on ff, from an equ i that the a ll by e i s an i S rd party i fe i g i i s concerned to prevent oodw i n eq: 24 12-JAN-21 7:09 nt i g S rect i ILL
n the name chosen. Its i ’ a l i mpose a construct ty c performance. nterest on the part of nd i i i g oodw i i f ed. ll ffs g i absolutely. i n i i ) W s, too, i ll, d i C s estates; the surv v i ary of the a fe, rema to ’ i i nt n: as one treat g i n these cases i c gi B i eves a result that the law alone i 5); Portmann v Herard, 409 P.3d 1199 lls cases, the a n s own death. Assume that s w i oodw i then makes h i 8 OINT t the ’ i ll i g i th the name so he could do so. ll B J i th respect to her own property, for i i s pla ll, each party executes a separate testamen- vor i i and s w s r. 19 i nder to chardson, 525 P.2d i i A what the pla AND Ci vor for l ty ach t. App. 1970). Other courts have arr table means, f Ri i i e before the other and w g i nt w C i ( i n i so, creates an reement. Th reement was made or not, an hts to secure the th g to us; here, equ g g ll d n dependent upon the threat, expressed or each party makes a w , rema i i n g ary of another w ig i i a g s, equ B n s a 90 c g . at 544–47. i l the surv i UTUAL ’ rd party benef i n i al powers w absolutely. d n i i ll, i B ptr. 115 ( g Estate of ve i C i fferent equ th R n do pp i nd i i g In the mutual w See i i , at 542. cally enforceable duty on the part of surv The problem al. 8 n i In re rrevocable and warrants spec i n the ma f nt w to them: the flow of custom that tradename attracted. tradename that custom of flow the them: to i 93 and C ty, i i i or obstruct i ” g on of the subject matter of the a s C. ); VII. M A on. 6 i i htly d cal terms. her le g n contrast to a jo i n i 8 i 8 i g nstance, A makes h makes A nstance, ig n i i lls nder to n i ll, i mate benef note 5 i s estate unt i th, vers i ’ s a i i scuss In do dent h sl n that case protected the pla i then alters the terms of h i i . Equ i tates, 766 F.2d 1141 (7th g m vert For B C S i S 94 “ s d . supr v. 2 201
i . Appeal to the House of Lords was den i on , C 8 eve: a spec i 91 ted i i RS s problem, courts have been w what we have com t of ee v. s or her estate to the surv i table d i s now no one who can sue on the contract; the deceased party has i g i i at 6 ed, that the appellants would explo , and B nt had com had nt i at 543. ary. ty to do so was i n . . ATE i B i i h nty as to whether a b ve A, rema l d d the mutual w i i c i See I I g i g on to assert contractual r njunct i mpl i In a mutual or jo n n to extract money from the owners of the ab i under the name or equ t nequ i i i i 9 38 notredamelawreview [vol prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown 91 It should be noted that much of the trouble 92 W 90 In a mutual w 94 8 93 i have the other surv traub v. Un [t]here nterest to A, should A surv n favor of B before someone other than “ suffered no loss, and the th party to the contract. protect an same result throu leav benef uncerta the scope of th tary document on i cern S (Wash. App. D 1979). the subject matter of B resolve th i here to be the ult poses the fact that one party w pos 11 The \\jc cannot ach bear from exerc the benef others from d standpo 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 115 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 115 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 116 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 - - s s s s i i ’ n ’ ’ ’ .). fe i nt .V. 39 i , a i g C ty nto R i vor i nten- cally i that i ke i
i f ll that g i g i amden vor the n n nce been nce i i i i reement C 156 ( propos s equ Dufour d es named g i vor of the i g i i nt w an.) (WL). vor accepts ty that, due i n s or her l ch bequests i h. 196 (En i i on has com- ar s spec i nded, but by but nded, i C s that, l i i ll protect i on i C QUITY i In t i i nent case fol- c es of the jo i i t h i i reement as to the to as reement i ll E g g i 96 . ar on ll prov n s a commonly stated i OF i sa t to be bound by the i thdraw from the ty w i i 121 ( i i i ve named benef i es at the moment c 97] 1 to that a S i i i s pos 8 g ’ s pos BC an.). ll by wh f ’ ar n dur C i i dence that they had f the surv C i g nt w [1 IPLE B i “ i i c a prom C ve benef i n r favor. Lord i fe, a trust was fastened ad i es. After the husband i n eq: 25 12-JAN-21 7:09 i 95 IN the trust as perfect i i S s some d some s , 100 i R g vor arswell s part of the contract ” a ve a benef i i ar n i .at 110). C . 102 ( i i on of fraud s 11 , P i ll. R c tt v. Johnson n vor R i ) . i i . i a 8 n the ted for the follow ther may w C fe estate to the surv ch cannot be resc be cannot ch i stence of the trust.the of stence s has It C i . i es h i . i i One explanat v. Bouste i Pr S s w NELL S ch, accord d n. The benef ’ i S i t the other to break the contract?
i fe made a w ul n e e on to the f i R i 101 i a i stence, and whether or not the surv fe made a jo t i nta i i NE was c i es, wh es, n benef 57 (expla ave a l R i i 8 g es, carr U , [1959] i ve named benef and upon the death of the surv what someone i ce Locke held for the major tt 8 ded equally amon ll T i g on to the ex the to on i i Dufour v. Pereir a Y 9 i nto ex rrevocable, at least v ht but wh n add i t n R ” Rochefouc ll and there was ev i i i i i rst to d Pr i Equity i t, ig s s i EN ance). ’ i n i reement to make a mutual w es i , Just ll that was a departure from the jo i g y to reement need not rece anderson Est., (199 t i vert H i al r i g g S m by the other reed to ma nt w ar note 51, at i n these cases? g rst that d i nell i s death, the w ted g , at 554–57. The prevent i i a i ’ c S ll a 8 i i ll. The w
nder to certa i i Dufour s a precond a s DMUND supr , the a i
99 , husband and w toba v. mental rel t ce of d g ., i E i . 102. . at 102. i ourt afterwards perm i g n R R note 5 note s an analo n favor of the f s just to say (on my account) that equ ed. . . i C i n i i a i t i vor may see f C C some 200 years later Tulk i . . der the case of had no le detr i ch the trust comes S S Ci i g njust ch C supr fe, rema ck. at 421 (c to her. i i mpose a trust on her estate es the trust i n i cally performable duty of a surv i i , i g i 97 and f aker eds., 24th ed. 1954)).ed. 24th eds., aker there that Note ll the SCC f ll. ons v. of Man i ” i n i i i RS ch ve estates should be held by the surv B fe made a new w HOFF ET AL i i i C i R , 1 D l the death of the f tt v. Johnson i ATE s a contract between the part the between contract a s ts conferred on h property was to be d TE a , [1959] , [1959] i i ck. 419 (1769); Pratt v. Johnson, [1959] reement between the husband and the w S nt w g ht to i me at wh at 106. W tt tt i i g at 109 (quot O Pr g n a a on, and there It . . on. W i i Unt “ d d ement, but thereafter i O nly not. , to wh I I See Dufour Pr Pr “ n t n ed couple made a jo i g i i i cat B The spec What just In es. After the husband ]equitable remedie ]equitable i lso r respect i arry & P.V. & arry f M K i 1 to her. a i 8 nt g reed not to alter the w i ll sou prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown g reement. Un 99 97 9 95 1 D 96 i ar erta i on: C Y ons and prevent g i g 100 101 i n n the jo i Moore v. Sweet See response to the i Me po benef some of acceptance she had com held that a party to a mutual w a C enforceable, wh 202 and \\jc the to use as such surv lowed by the just w wrote: the consent of both. The f marr a husband and w death, the w she and her husband had a rema c were made to three benef i to the a t arran the benef t execut upon the property that the husband d 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 116 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 116 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 116 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 s 3 g A ty i ts : ve rd i i i M K ta- i de n ble to s v. i i i i g 96 th d’ , C Y ht be n . g g ree on about i ve ig flex an-D ll only g n i g n vate law i “ i i i Lloy C n the th g n a w gi ree on the t conferred i n com- i s mandate n i g n ’ i i nst that actually to s an equ eld to defend s i i i ew that equ sa i ty sor a spe- B i i a i i t ts result to n common law g i i i on dur ons e Ltd. v. Ltd. e i lls cases m i lls, the secret n the contract i at 557. I a n i g i . As the contract i s part. i se be free to alter to free be se d on. i i I n and ven that the note 51. In i prom the benef shed es the v ; the construct 103 A i g ” gi C n the subject matter ntrus a vert the property by g i g i i ven an undertak n njunct i n es. s ak i i v gi i i i supr le & Dred & le nterest eq: 26 12-JAN-21 7:09 i what we have com i ve trust but d S ., nd that a contract between ch i TION ne may have th s asserted as a sh g i i i i s power. Equ s not, of course, an express an course, of not, s C i n i ht have had a t i se to perform, allow nterest i onable i s i i ver P ver ve) trust. ig th what our system of pr i i to f ested that, i nt and mutual w g Ri i ef wh table has allowed s now establ and the mutual w i would otherw would doctr i i gg sely because contract law on NJUN n i i I B ll ad s power to d ed w i Y table ’ s prom se of th i see m SCC HOFF ET AL i s su ’ i i nto by the part ll.Th R i n the form of a trust: i R i from the surv es has fully performed her end of the bar- i B i t Fraser g i s equ vor TE the construct ’ i n S i on on the part of zes. g ndependent cause of act UTO ve trust C i i O i i n es as protect C i part i O v. Bouste g s exerc But see But d al (construct Moore v. Sweet ’ n ut i LO on makes sense of i rd party, a rel —the property meant to devolve accord an.). The in ul i B i ch the courts are enforc R B to her prec i a C ntent B ht. i g tes: round 3, d that the remedy takes the form of br has an equ i f the other party has performed h th t: i i g 8 ig n a trustee of i , not an g C
i NTE A B reements to make jo g n s r s ns the surv ht crystall h. i g ’ ty compels the person, who has n i .), the court was w ll—protected i i , 109 ( and C i , but only where that benef g ig a 8 , at 555. Later, or on 102 re an A B ary g Rochefouc i 8 ty between i i i table remed t A n c i i i i made . 10 al r nt w htly be sa lar i C VIII. I R i g . and and ig s contract wh , but a remed i , at 555. Performance by the one encoura m ty makes a rare departure from the rule that a w C A reement that was entered nt, Waters wr i . i ht by 8 i C note 5 g on or obstruct S s le g t of i puts fetters on a i ty for performance. ’ s own death. h. 290 (En i c performance i B i C C forthr f s po i “ i c performance. ally th c performance that the prom supr i ne, and the i vers i ne concern i f 104 l h n each case Equ i s, equ f i i , i i note 5 i i on that constra ef for the pet n equ a and m brou i i i rd-party benef rd-party i RS i 0) 16 chebsman, [1944] sor. ch would requ mportant s s employed as a means of secur t can i A n what she has com at i th i -causal nature of the construct i S i i i t to someone else under a later w later a under else someone to t 88 supr g
i ATE nst d e ig
” c rel s essent i , n i ll unt i (1 g R i f i a nsulate the channel of value from unconsc s not up to the task. for the benef i n both cases, one of the contract i i RS An account of equ red. On th n i g dea of spec It c the spec prom trust od, before i B mon that to carry out that undertak The doctr trust doctr i i nst a cla i i rper n. In other words, one party has fully compl 40 notredamelawreview [vol prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown s w a i ATE i a i anada, ervs. Ltd., [1999] 3 a g 103 104 W 102 An s to nterest nterest create a trust for a to the terms of the jo ble obl leav trust, wh by a contract between i per H party to sue S of the contract between takes of a th a of takes scholar Donovan Waters put and In do testator. the of death the upon effect takes 11 i own \\jc us a the W h between and mult C performance of the a nature of spec that, g requ 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 116 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 116 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 117 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 - s s i 1 n m i i n- i 88 5, i a 4 ht, ta- to on ca- i eth i i g st g ig i the i but . 3 on n g n S es on on; i That s even i s true SCC i i i i i r
n 106 an.). In i ht to be i 8 In d s means cat C “ i n ig cific Syste able r 105 i . 331, 336 ew cally per- i i un i a i ” c whether to f adjud f i g EV i i d-twent njunct g e the status al r ap between ntervent i i R i nta n n P al process that the appl g g ., 547 U. g i i i ” a to a demonstra- a to : they protect i C n c mate outcome e of the test for a , be g i ” i i orp., 201 g g l adjud n ad . L. the i C i s a just es r. 2006) ( n i n V ned of. It s a le g i es as the outcome the as es i table i i a R i ch that process takes n i Ci i i A nstantaneous (such e, L.L. rst sta i g i s means requ ty for a defendant to ssu road. ., 333 F.3d 517, 525 (4th a, 709 F.3d 307, 319 (4th i i i . 495, para. 16 ( i B Equ ig n wh R the jud amount mandatory rather than pro- standard of rev t i . 9 (2d ‘ ” eq: 27 12-JAN-21 7:09 i g 8 g ployees C , 73 H S 8 C hers unt an s on attracts. Interlocutory . n d compla i i as there i , on, and what she has com- m 10 i bunal determ S i i g g 8 dence presented yet s 11 where there i al proceed urin m. The f “ case, y E on i on were i g d that would chan a rth of a controversy. i trust L anad table remed table i cie i on). i g patory remed i C a i ned here. As one m cla vert what another has com n s exact i f i c i g cat i s not lable on i i stency stency to the core nature of the i i i v. n i Pashby v. Del i enerally, enforce a spec njunct ce would be best served ma h a le zed and protected wherever equ R [1996] 2 i on so lon i i
i g g s an opportun lso ant ” nce of W of the forum n her case that the ult i es have the effect of ma pri n a n the status quo at the outset of the i “ i a njunct
s ava orp. Ant i See i i g rs the wron g cally performable, temporary dut C i less i nary see ay, Inc. v. MercExchan i f d on of th ned. f adjud ons, someth i i al. i r nta on njunct i i i B inten i i m i the Injunction Bon g ntervent n other contexts th i a ga s a cons i d i e cat table n i n to w l now on equ on now l n i i i n re i i s reco i a stron s already hers). In some contexts th cally, just s an.); i a i i “ ’ at tr crosoft spec .e., her cause of act C s by i ” s table dut nal remedy) i ap, there on the law and the ev of M i ately upon the b d g ty njunct i i appl i i i njunct d d g ‘ n on); i to ma M th of the underly ssue an i i to her throu i s g g ty of New York, 435 F.3d 7 ’ g roun n g i n Ci ht that vely equ In re to her i i (the f
g ourt s, equ mmed al process, ig g when the prel mpos [t]heoret g likelihoo i g g n i C “ “ g njunct n i n i nct i fference, for the purposes of a tr n i s i i ff would be i s that there i t, s free to i i i i st These equ ff almost certa s the stren i i i on other stron . v. Brotherhoo ve th the approach I have outl s temporal nt that th note 6, at 20. i i d i “ h a le i on d ’ table r ncenzo v. g t mately successful i ff already has, a nt i i g te i pal d i i (quot i 107 ht may fall to be determ n i ly, the process need not be before the court on, i s a temporally extended process that leads to a table duty not to obstruct or d b vert the remedy that the cause of act i ourt held that an ff has com s a g i i ga i ig i i i nt . 196, paras. 15, 17 ( nc g’” C n supr i .e., the remedy that repa i i i Interlocutory Injunctions rcumstances. There R n ter put bro . es are deployed: , equ nt i a defendant from do cific Lt i u i i i njunct be ult a on a g C i g stent w al proceed “ i . ig i le I have focused up unt up focused have I le al proceed n g n njunct S n nature, i i , the ons are d i ll i i i i i c n P MITH ncomplete, by ned throu cat i i a i S The pr i on the pla i ] 1 tion i e of c Wh ]equitable remedie ]equitable t a 8 i ad g tory M K 1 to her, on w 8 i er i n prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown g r. 2013) (hold r. 2003), b i d on could take place a C Y i on that there rant an 107 106 Intr 105 Note, 10 i n njunct i C other words, a court ascerta Fe wherever that r place. (2006))); Mastrov (1959). Ci h more search Ci [201 what the pla i even of the pla adjud what a pla 202 ran underly ble remed formable equ her. of jud \\jc as yet the defendant. g of the le pos that the remedy com prevent t mandatory t cat complete. In th obstruct or d i quo (a proh defendant to do someth also cons process (the less common mandatory century wr 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 117 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 117 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 117 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 - - c 3 n g i g r. a- i ff : ty i i on i M K cal n ] 1 i ad i ada ig a rst- Ci i on, ons t ll be i nary 8 ross, i 96 n ht a ser i i g i nt i C Y on i a “ G g i . n ct t turns m i i i i f n Bro i njunct s a sd p v. i i rant of the a i i n the sense i nstance, be g i [t]he typ [t]he n the publ i njunct 5, [201 ‘ i htly bound res the party 12-JAN-21 7:09 i i d to alter the ad
loss s i (alterat Inc. v. C ed i ig 396 (HL) 407 g n i r. 2019). Other d G onal formula by ff seek n the status quo ’” l
i SCC a i i C n t a
i Ci s t i s sa on i i lso 8 i nt a i nta ew that a pla a that ew s such that equ i i i on requ cDon i on es, favors a see a n cases where the court i i s v s that there R v. C , 201 i stands to attract a s case upfront, there are ’ 8 ’ g ffs may, for ); njunct s true across common-law real prospect of suc- i i i on to be tr ff ty 8 lly n “ 32 (2d ed. 2013). i i i nstance, was most recently i s S a nt i i eq: 2 i njunct s case nt S RJR-M i i ’ n the absence of prel . Corp. i n contrast, on of the defendant njunct ctu i ff i , 561–62 (9th s success depends on the m the on depends success s i n s a i ’ a i ad 8 rown subsequently sou i hood of success. cal common-law jur ff i ) to demonstrate that there w ). Th i cat i EMEDIE kely to succeed on the mer- C nt ) to show that the balance of conve- of balance the that show to ) i ii 8 i on, i nterest underly f con Ltd. [1975] A R i ous quest i i nt i ons, we have noted that noted have we ons, kel
iii i on i i i res show . 7, 20 (200 on on the part i ew of what a person had com n Bro anada case, i s l i S i LE i a aban Ent., Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 34 (2d anada, for i C B ous; ( S C i s v ad th of the pla ’ red that the pla njunct nterlocutory s a ser table i i he g n i ndemn njunct i n on must prove that she has a stron i i i ty “ on reflects equ reflects on i a 5, para. 12. i njunct reater l m. The 396 at 40 i i s requ o. v. Eth i i QUITA enerally seeks only to ma s favor, and that an g i C an.). i C nterlocutory g d harm to a defendant ef ct i ranted. i i C E rreparable harm i s case ex ante. Pla . . . [and] thus alters the trad SCC ourt of i g ’ d
on of the pla the of on i ct n h i t turn out that the court awarded the C 8 ff i R v. C i a i l, Inc., 555 U. njunct s refused; and ( and refused; s njunct i the stren i i an.). An i n to her. In a typ nt pat ps ve rel g sh that AW OF i i i and that there i i i . 196 ( g C c s cause of act n the v , 201 i i on ’ [1975] A L R mum, th yanam n tory and i g . i i i d volous nor vexat 110 ounc es t rmed the test developed ff i C i i n C i b i ” n HE the . i t i C ourt i cat In that case, the defendant had reported on a f i i S g e positive ) to prove there rounded equ upreme am C ts. A mandatory i njunct n ant n nt i ed i i , T g i n m . Corp. . 199 ( n S i OKF, NA v. Estes, 923 F.3d 55 i a kely to suffer R 114 B ] 1 i . Am. ad ateness of an tory and mandatory and tory ther fr so on bonds to secure on i i i 8 i on ( g .)). g i ). s proh C on establ i At m p between the equ . i b s l i g YMAN n . Cy i i es. Def. i i in S on to assess th of the pla ty can deploy to avo i . courts have requ m nterlocutory nterlocutory d i R t RR s ne g n the on was erroneously i n Bro i upreme i on f the appl the f S n i i A 109 E i i ht that CBC a n the future remedy—the pla
S
i Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. i B njunct ” ( g
i njunct ig g onsh on i 5, [201 n i ad i ntervent i n njunct mma EY nto account the effect of the i i n U. 76 (2015); i i R
a s 8 dent al on the mer njunct cat al r ’ tion njunct i i g i i on to be tr C i SCC e case. g i a
n ty EFF i by co ew that a pla 111 i , [1995] 3 i J 8 i 63, ” (quot at 33 (quot nter v. Nat. 113 that the movant demonstrate a nterest . 8 . . i s ev ons. The test for sms that equ i nary for the between proh The appropr a tr g i i i ed the stren g i d d . on. g g nary g i I I See n g i S ct n i n n n i i m . 196, where the court aff The relat i i rements are: he red to post r i i i i m i nal) (quot 112 ree murder case, nam y Gen.) i R ’ sd ma fac culated by the ef, that the balance of equ . ” sh g i i i 42 notredamelawreview [vol i sjud i prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown st Corpor igi ence, tak i i C rreparable harm rreparable i on of harm to a defendant should . u 112 W 113 Equ 111 114 201 110 109 a n the form of an of form the n ts. i njunct nterest. requ rel i 576 U. (Att apply that the appl “i n jur art S t i (appeal taken from En erroneously. In add mechan m requ out that the ceed to the v remedy. g 11 i \\jc ous quest prel i de prel pend status quo 1995))). has an and the le to her c requ or can see that remedy as com therefore, a party seek pr 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 117 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 117 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 118 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 s a i It n ly al i “ “ i 43 i na- on on on on to 115 120 i ent i i i i s g case omp. g i on of i njunc- n C n i i cat ons i
nat ty had i i cie ’ on, the on, i i s ord i m to an nforma- i on of th a on i i i nsofar as nsofar mater i neat nterlocu- t R v. CBC on of the
i f lable had i i njunct njunct i i g i ef i i g i para. 26 ( ve remedy. n . i dent n ssem i s necessar s ma i d s cont i i i s cla i njunct med) was on spos ’ fy ree of success i i i fy njunct s i pri i i ff ’ g njunct ve rel table
ty i See i i i i i g a (Workers l m nterlocutory on would have been i nal contempt, i i i i nt i ty of an of ty i econdly, mproper mproper dent i on as separate mat- dent ct i i l on was resolved. h de S rown been able to show to able been rown m i i i ent. i i lab i i i C njunct ig c i i rown cla olumb njunct lab i i ve. mate suppress C C eq: 29 12-JAN-21 7:09 i i on: an effect S on as on i s breach of a publ i ’ n what she has com njunct ts ava sh nterlocutory i i i The mandatory i i th a h rst, the equ s 11 t nal conduct. The del i for the i i on that i i r nterlocutory g t i i m B 119 n i i neffect on would only be ava rcumstances, an i njunct i i al; absent such an such absent al; i e case of cr i nterlocutory remedy remedy nterlocutory i i because the v nts. F nterest al removal of the the of removal i i and so i g 8 n law. on would prevent the d edly cr de here. To be clear, the d ve s i i i i 121 ’ n g 11 on call i on and the i njunct ” l the contempt act i i nal contempt—an m i the test for i i m at the outset. or to tr to or n some c ma fac i i i g priori i m tat rect on, i a n i n alle i i ht to understand the pla s may not have been suff i i for the propos i njunct me of tr njunct g g i i i pr njunct n i i g al cla al outcome that (the on pr on s that, i rown has demonstrated a stron g i g cacy culat ated cla on of her cause of act an.)). i i i s request for an for request s i C n that case. on for the broadcaster ’ C i i nal matters, or that—evenor the matters, had nal case of cr i llustrates two po ct cat i i Amchem Prods., Inc. v. i cie m ty of the of ty i zed that a mandatory analys g al process would make an ult a i i ested that th g ourt of Appeal had cast the ava the cast had Appeal of ourt rown l n ssued to enjo g f s case, an In art i i i nformat n ’ on at the t i C i C gg i n cr n o ma i 97, 930 ( nal contempt c dely known. The g lab i 8 117 i i th of the le pri ” ate .
i g m utted of eff rown sts to protect the party R i t, as well as an g . i i g whether the ht and lable te. C i i “ C g emphas on to be removed unt the adjud . th of the assoc i S g llary to a cause of act rown had not nformat g i i ewed the ewed n
C i i ly ava ly n the fore t to a mandatory order d order mandatory a to t SCC the g i i i para. 24 (quot v para. 31. para 9. para. 23. ).
g zon. n para. 25. para. 23. s case helpfully t ” on apart from the le The Alberta The i ...... i i i g n i nappropr d d d d d d rcumstances, however, I would not dec i i c i I I I I I I rown made out a stron n fy i n quest i nal contempt conv i i s the way to ensure that a contempt case w SCC s case a stron i Th The C ]equitable remedie ]equitable i 116 i tl ch the M K i 1 lable. 8 i s way, the court of appeal sou i m mpl i prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown i i i ed to the stren on ly or read or ly d.) [1993] 1 C Y on may be sou 120 The court also su 119 11 121 117 116 115 i i i t treated the cr njunct dent i s n th i t B i those c appeal should not be taken as stand r ava shows that the ava the that shows t on the stren just would not be already become w the wh 202 cr ban placed on t The i as a matter of \\jc tory remedy ex th ters. ent from the webs Assum her follow the hor remedy anc i of the of delay caused by the le i 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 118 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 118 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 118 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 s d 3 g r. n n i n- : i al .); i i M K a rly on g g ray, Ci i i ons n a o. v. 96 al i i cant B C Y rrollo, that i i or to C n the . on a es, f i Fin g i i i stron g a th nor an. Nov. “ tr n , Parmar (2d i n ve, not i . i g C 8 m, fa culars of g t i i e Des ig i njunct n odas ally devel- ( me of the ev Aetn d i i i njunct i i rounds for . 2d 513, 522 213 (En b 8 B
ons were not s a . 2161, 2174 i t on pr i i i g i i R R n a njunct amuel L. i no EV i m) from the n See, e. anada and else- S ct 1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. i a i th of her le R spute. However, i n dama ally s * rev i C an. Ont.). In the i ic i g s.
x a C ons i sd n . 2d 33 i njunct i g i i M L. , see R s cla n . ons, al remedy as some- Karaha r. 2006); Velasquez v. n personam order, i 0] All E ’ i 2), 39 O. i S ther deal w no g 8 i 8 Ci lso a on at the t s jur a i tself proh ic ’ njunct DHAM i i le and thus more read- 79446, at potent x or to th cant i
R i ed, and (v) ct Grupo Me 8 i g eq: 30 12-JAN-21 7:09 nterlocutory i i s an a . 2d 715 ( See O S i i s f A [19 rounds for bel (2d n i n njunct i R nterlocutory nterlocutory S i i g i 8 , ¶ 2.700 (4th ed. 2017). sd rev i on for a
i 2), 53 N. al value that adheres mate le E i a i i th on of assets pend 8 a on C i sclosure of all matters i i . 997, 1009–14 (2015), and Dav i M ers t ara, 500 F.3d 111, 117 n. on i n.2 othbart (19 i ew of the stren ly mob cat , 73 F ourt i g Grupo Me rev i 8 i EV d g R mpos C MAN a ) the ndustry, have been used across a across used been have ndustry, i R i the amount of the cla n n an.), a bankruptcy d R ons because such zed 125
i ere s unjust i shed as they have i ) a statement of the part i Ne 1), 31 O. g iii i M i ts v C i d v) an undertak spos g i n 8 ), 2012 WL 5 ii FO i i n njunct ef, m. g n R i ulkcarr tel v. B i n the jur . L. i i i i i E
njunct ons for years pr um B on that a party ne i i h ons, as w i a . 2 ( on, B i l P g i al, ( ven njunct C upreme
pp ’ R i
) (L n (19 AND i C i ncreas . cla ed, ( , 332–33 (1999), held that federal courts do not do courts 332–33 federal , that held (1999), S n i
a i g ct i as rev i gi 8 50–2.950. g a . i C ly, an appl V IFI r nclud n . a G 8 S sf rst reco i i i GG n 8 C g S i i rev njunct i sd rev i M n . 30 . i a ty approach ary Act was enacted. a PE njunct i i (N sh sh sh i njunct , 6 table rel S i a i S i i c 8 A v. Int l M M
i sat
S nt on the d A g o. v. Atk 5] 1 removed from the court rev a g jur i ourt f tted). 8 ’ i a C g ) a full and frank d n C AND i i ma Esperanca L. DA. (19 to her— n V154 rev s a well-known form of M ons have not flour i ssue era 122 i S nyak Dan Injunctions Reconsi i i i t i 9 Jud g C a i i , 527 U. 527 , h a 8 n , [19 s om . at 10 (quot on of the U. g ves of the value of the ult i i 123 M i n i R s ls or the res ( on nst the defendant, ( . ons. i i TION i i i cant nevertheless has to prove that there i e that are mater , Inc. , i C C an M a Nav ma a note 122, ¶¶ 2. on to valent to the value of the appl upreme . njunct a Mar i d i g g i i ct a i Mareva el h, 445 F.3d 105, 117 n.27, 11 g S S the New Equity i
ank & Tr. g g ct sm of the major d a i B i m fa ment restra for the underly n sd NJUN i c sputes. Fun l ” i supr i g a sd i ’ ntervenes to protect the potent rev t requ t d i for me the 17 5] 1 njunct Althou i i i , I , i a ty conce i nts a nst the defendant, orp., No. 12 d 8 ompan i i
i ; avana C PE PE M . v. Fei C a nary form of equ a g ty C R i R l d 124 sk of assets be i g i ranted ex parte, requ .A.)) (emphas i n , [19 i g e case rev C s knowled HA e of d HA v anada, the i a nce Bon nce e Court ’ that the defendant has assets a S S g on. As assets have become ment or award be on. a C C table jur m i The Nee i berty Nat g tates, i m a g i E i M S s a r the po n J. n the context of the En the of context the n ct S i See Aetn i es Ltd. v. Parcer i i T g a person has com i cat cant In the context of A The prejud R i i g n ev E sd m. Equ i ted lable at the t i ma fac i i n i i B 44 notredamelawreview [vol i l Services Lt an. Ont. i de ran prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown i sher i apper, O a enerally, equ enerally i cot.); L 124 123 In C 122 Mareva 125 s demand ly removed from the courts The Supre S Un (2005). Perusahaan Pertamban 2007); Metro Fuel O 25, 2012). For cr C F ( ci lower courts had made use of mandatory, the appl pr 11 \\jc R where. A narrow 5–4 dec Alli v. S.A. have equ stat th cla i appl the cla g an extraord costs on the defendant. Accord g remove assets (equ jur i oped w ava there the jud the event the cla bel common-law common-law jur appl 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 118 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 118 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 119 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 - - - ) e i n s- g i i B m 45 g ta- i teel or S 6] 30 table Cu table s sort i i 8 132 i ch she Jud i ch con- on, but, i i 1097 (Q 1097 table rem- shed rules 130 i R i ” ch concern on of a d of th ment reco i i cular source costs after a between the i ” nted for the g ’ ” i v.); Orwell table enforce- on. i i s are complete, i hts, wh s assessed ap g i ued that such an ig g 4] 1 WL 1 4] n g vert or destroy the destroy or vert i n jud 8 equ i rmed. The equ es—equ hts, wh i i “ en. D ig table execut G ig they would lose the i g reed. These equ on of assets, such as a ll the es on the defendant. A i an. (1969) Ltd., [19 i i g ht to a part n eq: 31 12-JAN-21 7:09 f i s enforcement. In al execut C S equ ’ “ shed shed channel of the jud enforcement ig that g 104 (N.Z.). “ i “ g R on and protect (Ont. s 11 i r r tor neteenth neteenth century, courts 8 n t i i al proceed i i le quantum i i ver to be appo i s counsel ar i ’ c n ed woman, was ordered to pay et le i i g ff g table i i upply of S .). nt 4th 16 tled [the defendants] to equ g 0] 1 NZL i ION i 126 sted of just one share to wh C 8 S thstand i s a class of remed that the that i P i en. h the establ her assets so as to d to as so assets her g C LU ment-cred G g on to g n ntervene to protect the value that would that value the protect to ntervene i [19 C g i i ) t ff, a marr n table powers to i n assets wh i i a i i rected to pay the defendants thout precedent and the establ i ON s performance as a i h. 16 (En nt ’ zed. Equ i t to t ed for a rece C ch cons i med at the preservat C i cally performable dut i i i ce, to ent t would amount to i i i f on, notw , at the court of appeal, aff The defendants, fear i i thstand .A.). t n her favor. ourt, the pla R i i 8 i C rely w C n a pos i orp. v. Am. 97] 1 ff was d i 12 ons a i 8 C pl. Co. (Liby i spec x ll. ued that there i nt ent g i g n. s pos “ on to restra ranted; i i n ment ons used equ i on; the pla i i ht to flow throu g ns [1 g i i ndley M ment, appl g shed pract on) Ltd. v. Asphalt & Tarmac (U.K.) Ltd., [19 Ltd., (U.K.) Tarmac & Asphalt v. Ltd. on) an. Ont. i ct i i or where a party seeks to have a fore ht to another g i hancery ment and the jud C L a pla ig g 134 C sd cat s account, stand as the reco ments are enforced. In the n 133 i i mpos i i njunct g i 127 s r 131 , ’ n other act o beyond the enforcement of our property r cle has ar Hunt v. BP E ” i . i ence act g , Lamont v. Kent (1999), 30 ns v. Perk 8 , . i . s prevented from remov from prevented s i g ig g anada. l to establ At the ty has a related role to play after jud C g at 1 at 17. at 16–17. g ment i appeal, ourt. tled under a w s Art i . . . . . i g n on they must be g umm es, on th ch rejected th n C i d d d d d i i i t of the jud i was apparently See, e. See, e. I I I I I 129 on and Fabr and on C n i i ” i . 4th 600, 609 ( Th Equ ]equitable remedie ]equitable R m, value that ou M K 1 es—that 8 i i led ne prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown zed i i al process, by ins v. Perkins i C Y i 134 132 133 Walter E. Heller F 130 131 129 127 12 126 ssuance of a jud D.L. (Erect at 1097. but before jud pend Kekew of the order should not be accord ble powers of the court allowed court the of powers ble flow to the defendants, notw n 202 cla \\jc ed cern only what we already have, and our contractual r only a person remed common-law common-law jur i m ment execut postjud was ent of that value has not yet crystal can be seen fa out of her separate estate—wh benef share. c defendant value of a future jud 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 119 Side A 01/21/2021 10:02:26 A 01/21/2021 119 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 119 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 t 3 g g n i a- : se i ht i M K n n i to ca- i i i le g ig 96 ot i C Y se of se n . hbor, i g i i nes of i se that ig mpl i i what we “ te of two i a ne cular, and table r “ i n i z., to br i i to us, wh us, to vate actors to able duty trav- i nterest. A spe- g i i es that ar i n n part ap between what i ot i pr mportant g g i nterest te tself an exerc i i about that state of ms at—v table ga g i i n s ne i n i vate law, by prevent out of the conf i i eq: 32 12-JAN-21 7:09 g obli n the form of S i ates a vendor to exerc n on of a s thus a compos t. One i i i i ig t i s not i n g reak n a free market, as a ne nst whoever bears the power to i enerally, a i se the equ B ce of i nterests and dut a i g i ts flow. Th g i tor ntervenes ntervenes
i i ht. n what we have com have we what n g i n ig z., merely to ty reement i i i th not ty to perfect pr s approach, table g i i i i me a reco i ze and to protect our vate law i vert ht to performance and an equ i i n rs—and what contract law ig g i nterest i or d nterest w s enforceable a g i i our n g i n ht c performance need not and often do not track what i i ns whoever now has the power to comprom ty to reco s f i ig i reed upon. i s that the equ i i g s at the same t cular, and pr reement to sell property obl t, and more. Equ i i i
g ” ht to the unobstructed flow of what a person has com ndependent powers they have to br ig table r i i h obstruct th spec i g n part i enerally actually does, v to us le an a g g i hts: the contractual r s account se the protected n i i i table table r on w that constra ig i i es actually a ” i se other i The need for equ ty, the equ rs. Wh nct r i i i cally performable contract, on th vate law v i 46 notredamelawreview [vol i i prod01\productn\N\NDL\96-3\NDL305.txt unknown st i f nct equ on of th i i i i s en route. nterest throu i exerc affa her power to convey property, the a that power to convey. It falls to equ comprom from others about a planned-for state of affa pr 11 t \\jc pr comprom her, as a party to a contract, as a compet as a party to a lawsu ble duty i t els to whoever bears the power to comprom c d conjunct that extends beyond the contractual r the part have com contract law 42855 ndl_96-3 Sheet No. 119 Side B 01/21/2021 10:02:26 B 01/21/2021 119 Side Sheet No. ndl_96-3 42855