Remedies.

Relief traditionally administered at law, commonly money damages or recovery of possession. Calling a remedy monetary does not automatically resolve every law-versus-equity question.

Relief such as an injunction, specific performance, or reformation addresses situations where legal relief is inadequate. Equitable defenses and the court's remedial discretion remain important.

A monetary award compensates a legally recognized injury or serves another authorized remedial purpose. The proper measure follows the claim, proof, causation, and applicable limits.

Money attempts to place the claimant in the position the governing substantive right protects. Recovery must connect to proved loss and cannot produce prohibited double compensation.

Losses ordinarily expected to result from the wrong can be categorized as general damages. The distinction from special damages depends on the claim and jurisdiction.

Loss is measured using the property's relevant value, commonly market value at the appropriate time and place. The governing rule determines whether another valuation better captures the compensable interest.

Reasonable repair, replacement, or completion costs can measure loss. Disproportionate economic waste or other limits may justify using a different measure.

Losses tied to the claimant's particular circumstances require the required pleading and proof. Consequential losses may also face foreseeability, certainty, and causation limits.

The claimant must establish a sufficiently reliable basis for finding and measuring loss. Mathematical precision is unnecessary, but speculation alone cannot support an award.

Recovery excludes loss the claimant reasonably could have avoided after the wrong. The claimant need not take unreasonable risks or incur disproportionate burdens to mitigate.

Benefits from an independent source ordinarily do not reduce a tortfeasor's liability under the common-law rule. Statutes and jurisdiction-specific exceptions can change both admissibility and offsets.

Interest compensates for the lost use of money before judgment. Entitlement, accrual date, and rate depend on the claim and governing statute.

Under the American rule, each side ordinarily pays its own lawyer. A statute, contract, or recognized exception can authorize fee shifting.

An additional award may punish and deter sufficiently culpable conduct. Availability requires the applicable substantive showing and remains constrained by statutory and constitutional limits.

A small award recognizes violation of a right even when compensable actual loss is not proved. It does not substitute for proof of substantial damages.

A qualifying relationship can support recovery for loss of companionship, services, or intimacy caused by injury to the other person. Eligibility and recoverable components vary by jurisdiction.

Repair or exact completion may cost far more than the benefit achieved. A court may instead choose diminution in value or deny disproportionate equitable relief under the applicable rule.

A single award compensates both existing and qualifying future harm treated as permanent. The classification affects future suits, accrual, and the measure of recovery.

An award covers harm for a limited period, often where the condition can be abated. Later injury may support another claim, subject to the governing accrual rules.

A claim must be brought within the legally prescribed period after accrual. Continuing harm, discovery rules, and characterization as temporary or permanent can affect the analysis.

A claimant cannot obtain inconsistent or duplicative relief that exceeds the protected interest. Alternative pleading may be allowed even when a final election or adjustment becomes necessary.

The court directs a person to do or stop doing something. Its precision, notice, jurisdictional basis, and method of enforcement distinguish it from an ordinary damages award.

A judicial command requires or forbids conduct to protect a legal interest. Availability turns on the applicable equitable prerequisites and defenses.

Equity generally asks whether available legal relief can practically protect the interest. Irreparable harm, uniqueness, recurring injury, or collection problems can make money relief inadequate.

Adding equitable claims does not erase a jury right on legal issues. In mixed cases, overlapping issues carrying a jury right ordinarily must be resolved by the jury first.

Short-lived relief preserves the situation until a preliminary-injunction hearing. Relief without notice requires special justification and strict procedural compliance.

Interim relief protects against harm before final judgment. The governing test examines likely success, irreparable injury, the balance of hardships, and public interest, with jurisdictional variations.

Final relief follows adjudication of the merits and satisfaction of equitable requirements. Winning liability alone does not automatically entitle a claimant to an injunction.

Security can cover loss caused by a wrongful temporary restraint or preliminary injunction. Federal Rule 65(c) governs that requirement; a permanent injunction does not carry the same general bond rule.

An equitable decree can order a transfer of property or authorize steps that accomplish it. Procedural rules may allow a substitute act or judgment when the obligated person refuses.

A judgment establishes an enforceable legal obligation, often to pay money. Collection ordinarily proceeds through authorized execution procedures rather than imprisonment for unpaid ordinary debt.

Courts may enforce lawful commands or punish obstruction through contempt. Civil and criminal classifications carry different purposes, procedures, and safeguards.

A sanction seeks compliance or compensates injury from disobedience. A coercive sanction generally must offer a meaningful ability to comply and end the sanction.

A sanction punishes completed disobedience or obstruction. Criminal procedural protections apply, with the required safeguards depending on the nature and severity of the sanction.

A legally mistaken order from a court with jurisdiction ordinarily must be obeyed until changed, stayed, or reversed. The proper response is judicial review rather than unilateral defiance.

A genuinely jurisdictionally void order differs from an erroneous one. The distinction is narrow, and orderly challenge is ordinarily required rather than assuming disagreement permits disobedience.

An order requires affirmative action, such as removing an encroachment. Courts consider feasibility, specificity, hardship, and other equitable limits.

An order restrains conduct, such as continued interference with property. It must identify the prohibited acts with enough precision to guide compliance.

A nonparty ordinarily is bound only with actual notice and active concert or participation with an enjoined person. Someone acting independently for a separate interest is not automatically bound.

Repeated injuries can make separate damages actions impractical. Equity may prevent the recurring wrong when the remaining injunction requirements are met.

The pleading identifies the remedy the claimant requests. Available relief still depends on substantive entitlement, proof, and procedural rules governing notice and judgment.

A structure or use extends onto another's land without a right. Removal, damages, or other relief depends on property rights and the jurisdiction's equitable rules.

Knowing invasion of another's property strongly weakens an argument that removal would be too costly. A deliberate wrongdoer ordinarily receives less favorable hardship balancing than an innocent improver.

A substantial, unreasonable interference with protected use or enjoyment may support damages or an injunction. Remedy selection considers the injury, recurring harm, and applicable equitable limits.

A buyer may seek available performance with a price reduction for a deficiency. Materiality, ability to perform, contract terms, and equitable fairness affect entitlement.

A price adjustment can reflect the proportion of the promised property or interest that cannot be delivered. The proper method depends on the nature of the shortfall and governing law.

Measure the difference between value as promised or before injury and value actually received or after injury. The legally relevant valuation date and comparison must be identified.

A recipient may have to return a benefit or its value when retaining it would be unjust. Liability can arise from innocent receipt as well as wrongdoing and may be legal or equitable.

A person holds a benefit at another's expense under circumstances making retention unjust. Identify the benefit and reason for restitution rather than assuming every advantage must be repaid.

A claimant seeks return of specific personal property wrongfully held. Available interim procedures and accompanying damages depend on the governing statute.

A person entitled to possession of land seeks to recover it from another occupant. Title and the immediate right to possess must be distinguished.

Law imposes an obligation to pay for an unjustly retained benefit without an actual agreement. The remedy prevents unjust enrichment rather than enforcing a fictional negotiated promise.

Traditional terminology describes choosing restitution of a wrongdoer's gain instead of tort compensation for the claimant's loss. It does not require pretending the underlying wrong never occurred.

Recovery measures the reasonable value of compensable services supplied. Establish the basis for payment and unjust retention rather than relying only on the fact that work was performed.

A traditional restitution measure recovers the reasonable value of goods supplied. It differs from enforcing an agreed contract price.

A historical possessory action sought return of wrongfully detained personal property or its value. Modern statutes often supply replacement procedures.

Equity treats identified property as held for the claimant to prevent unjust enrichment. The claimant must connect the remedy to specific property and satisfy equitable requirements, including inadequate legal relief.

A trust can arise from circumstances indicating that beneficial ownership was not intended to accompany legal title. Purchase-money and failed-trust settings are traditional examples, subject to exceptions.

The claimant follows an asset into its identifiable substitute or proceeds. Tracing establishes a property connection; it is not itself a complete cause of action or remedy.

Mixing money from different sources creates a tracing problem. Presumptions can identify the claimant's surviving interest, but they do not automatically make every dollar in the account recoverable.

A value purchaser without relevant notice may take free of an equitable property claim. A gift recipient ordinarily cannot invoke the same protection merely by being innocent.

Equity imposes a security interest in identified property to secure an obligation. Unlike a constructive trust, it ordinarily gives a claim against value rather than full beneficial ownership.

An innocent recipient's good-faith detrimental reliance can reduce restitution to the extent repayment would be inequitable. Notice or wrongdoing generally defeats the defense.

An officious provider of an unsolicited benefit ordinarily cannot demand restitution. Request, duty, mistake, compulsion, or justified protection of another's interests can alter that result.

A person who intended a genuine gift ordinarily cannot later demand payment merely because the recipient benefited. The intended gratuitous character defeats the claimed expectation of restitution.

Restitution generally respects the recipient's opportunity to decide whether to accept a paid benefit. Forcing unwanted benefits on another ordinarily does not create a right to payment.

This tracing convention treats earlier withdrawals as coming from earlier deposits. Its use depends on the jurisdiction and context rather than a universal rule for mixed accounts.

A fiduciary mixing trust and personal money is presumptively treated as spending personal funds first. The presumption protects the beneficiary's identifiable balance, subject to limits and competing tracing principles.

A claimant's traced amount cannot exceed the lowest account balance after commingling and before relevant restoration rules apply. Later unrelated deposits do not automatically replenish dissipated trust money.

Unreasonable delay plus resulting prejudice can bar or limit equitable relief. Mere passage of time is insufficient without the required contextual showing.

Serious misconduct related to the requested equitable relief can defeat it. Unrelated wrongdoing is not a general license to deny every remedy.

Equity may deny enforcement that would be unjust or impose undue hardship. Grossly inadequate consideration combined with unfair advantage can matter; an unfavorable bargain alone is not automatically enough.

The transaction is unwound to restore the parties toward their precontract positions. Grounds, promptness, restoration obligations, and protections for third parties must be considered.

A party effects rescission through the acts required by law and seeks the resulting legal relief. Required notice and restoration distinguish it from simply refusing to perform.

The claimant asks a court to cancel the agreement and adjust the parties' positions. Equity can condition relief on appropriate restoration and address practical restoration difficulties.

A mistaken belief about a relevant fact can support relief when the doctrine's materiality, risk-allocation, and other requirements are met. A bad prediction alone is not necessarily a qualifying mistake.

Both parties share a material mistaken assumption. Rescission depends on its effect on the exchange and which party bears the risk under the governing rule.

One party's material mistake may justify rescission under limited conditions, such as the other's knowledge or sufficiently unconscionable enforcement. Risk allocation and ability to restore the parties matter.

A material false assertion inducing justified reliance can support rescission. The required mental state and available remedies vary with whether the claim sounds in fraud, negligence, or innocent misrepresentation.

A court corrects a writing that fails to express the parties' actual agreement. The remedy fixes the record of the bargain rather than creating a new bargain the parties never made.

A writing may be corrected when one party was mistaken and the other knew or suspected the error. Relief must reflect actual intent and protect later good-faith purchasers for value.

A drafting or transcription mistake causes the document to misstate the actual agreement. Reformation may correct it upon the required proof.

Compensation aims to supply the value of promised performance, placing the claimant as if the contract had been performed. Avoided costs and causation, certainty, foreseeability, and mitigation limits reduce recovery.

Compensation reimburses qualifying loss from relying on the agreement, aiming toward the position without the contract. The defendant may prove limitations such as a loss the bargain would have produced.

Expenditures made to prepare for or perform the contract form a core reliance interest. Recovery must still satisfy causation and the applicable limitations.

Other expenditures made in reliance on the transaction may be recoverable when the applicable rules permit. They are distinct from the direct cost of performing the promised exchange.

An agreed breach amount replaces proving ordinary damages. In California, general commercial clauses are valid unless unreasonable when made; specified consumer and residential clauses require actual damages to be impracticable or extremely difficult to determine. Other jurisdictions apply their own tests.

An unenforceable clause imposes punishment rather than an allowed estimate or measure of compensable loss. Invalidating the penalty does not necessarily eliminate a claim for proved actual damages.

Equity orders the promised performance when damages are inadequate and the contract is sufficiently enforceable. Feasibility, fairness, certainty, and defenses can still defeat the remedy.

The court must know what performance to order with adequate precision. A contract enforceable for damages may still be too uncertain for a specific-performance decree.

The historical approach sometimes denied specific performance unless both parties could receive that remedy. Modern analysis generally focuses more directly on adequate assurance of reciprocal performance.

The court must be able to protect the defendant's right to the agreed exchange. Completed, tendered, secured, or otherwise assured performance can satisfy that concern without identical remedies.

A valid negative covenant may restrain competing unique services where law permits. The order must meet equitable requirements and cannot effectively coerce continued personal labor.

A contractual promise requires abstaining from specified conduct. Injunctive enforcement depends on validity, scope, public policy, and the ordinary equitable prerequisites.

Equity may treat property according to an enforceable obligation to convert it, such as a binding land sale. The consequences depend on the issue and any modifying statute or agreement.