equitable remedies

Too many on a single thread! How is any student in the future going to be able to identify the subject matter of these questions when they’r all included within a single thread?

Don’t do this again, please

1) “Damages will be awarded where damages is a sufficient remedy” – that answers the first part of your first question

Remedies are available for the party that has suffered. We’re not likely to have two parties suffering as a result of a situation so, no, remedies will be awarded one way only

2) Where a wall has been built, without planning permission, and the planning department of the local government demand that it be knocked over, that’s nothing to do with the Courts

If a neighbour applied for planning permission to build a wall and you apply to the Court because the wall, when built, will deprive you of your right of light, that’s the time when a Court will issue and injunction that says “Do not build (or “stop building”) that wall”

If a wall is built without planning permission the local department can demand that it be destroyed and, if the wall owner refuses, the council will approach the court for a court order to demolish the wall

“3. Affirmed contracts are not liable for equitable remedies. But how can a contract be rectified if it has not been affirmed?” = If it hasn’t been affirmed before the misrepresentation was discovered, that’s fine – the Court is then able to step in and grant restitution or rescission (or other remedy).

The problems start when the contract HAS been affirmed – because the innocent dupe has now lost the opportunity of asking for help

“4. are liquified damages an equitable remedy?” I assume you mean “liquidated damages” – No, they are a pre-contractual realistic attempt to arrive at an amount that sensibly represents the figure that would be necessary to compensate the ‘victim’ in the event of breach

“how doe they basically work? I mean- does the court insert them into the contract?” – they are nothing to do with the Court – these are estimated, calculated amounts designed to compensate the ‘victim’ for losses in the event of the other party’s breach

“or just nullify them if they already exist?” – the Court would only nullify them were they to appear to be in the nature of a penalty or otherwise not a genuine attempt at calculating a realistic figure

“5. does the Limitation Act only apply to equitable remedies (and not common law remedies)? Is this Act the same as the Doctrine of Laches?”

There are too many variables and exceptions within the concept of a statute of imitations! But here’s an interesting wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)