Brilliant!
Thank you
2 Likes
The doctrine of unclean hands basically says you cannot benefit from a situation in which you acted in bad faith, in simple language. More complex, but essentially, if you created the circumstances that led to your claim, you cannot then claim you were damaged by it.
31 Likes
Is there a picture next to that definition, cause if not I’d love to nominate one.
8 Likes
Is that like - if you buy some illegal drugs and they are not good quality illegal drugs you can not sue the person who sold you the bad quality illegal drugs?
Edit - before people freak out, this example has nothing to do with the MB/LK situation.
7 Likes
Tomorrow will be interesting, for sure. I have errand most of the morning and early afternoon, but will be checking for updates.
The psychology of people fascinates me. This whole ordeal has been one for the history books in abnormal behavior. I hope there is case law that comes from this that helps anyone else tormented in this manner. Words are powerful, and there are (should be) consequences for behavior this extreme.
It’s hard to comprehend parents participating in these antics. My now adult son knew I’d protect him to the ends of the earth. But not if he was in the wrong, then the chips fell where they fell.
16 Likes
a better example would be in the case of contracts:
Party A and Party B enter into a contract for Party A to purchase services from Party B. Party B knows that they cannot deliver the services under the terms of the contract, but encourages Party A to sign the contract anyway.
If Party A does not pay for the services, Party B cannot sue them for specific performance because they induced Party A to sign even though they did not have intention to fulfill the contract. Thus their hands are “unclean” with regards to enforcing Party A’s contractual obligations.
It’s seen commonly in cases where for example a debt collector is trying to enforce payment from a customer but has acted in bad faith trying to collect the debt.
In order to use it, you have to be eligible for equitable relief. You can’t use the doctrine when the only possible relief is monetary, so it has to be in a claim for injunctive relief, specific performance or similar. Interestingly, though, you can claim that the defendant (here, because we are talking about MB’s counterclaim against LK) also has unclean hands.
7 Likes
I just had an interesting conversation with my son about his responsibility and what parts of adulting I expect him to manage solo, and where his parents role, as he’s “just” 19, is for now.
But as I said, he’s 19. Not 40.
8 Likes
My son is almost 38. Expectation’s need to be age appropriate for sure. 40 is well past any protection I would give. Advice, sure. A chewing out, absolutely. Protection when they are out of this world wrong. Nope, not happening.
16 Likes
19 - an adult with training wheels.
22 Likes
I’m a bit behind, but I didn’t see a reply yet. I’m guessing MB told him not to shoe LK’s horses that morning—or told somebody else to tell the farrier. I’m pretty sure it would have had to come from MB or MHG originally.
2 Likes
Exactly
1 Like
Just a note that at least among litigators that I know, if anyone in court says that something is well argued, you are already both mentally swearing and drafting the appeal because you know whatever you were arguing for is about to be denied 
22 Likes
I don’t think we know that for a fact. It could simply be that the farrier was not wanting to deal with LK and RG. It is not like those two are a dream to deal with, in my opinion.
9 Likes
Could be, but I thought I remembered that RG’s text to LK was that the farrier told him that he was told not to shoe them—hence the FTB text back to RG from LK.
But, my remember’n ain’t always up to par!
5 Likes
I am also not sure we know why farrier balked.
But I’ve forgotten more than I knew at this point.
What RG texted to LK may not actually be accurate though.
3 Likes
Can the typo “Laurence Kanarek” effect anything?
5 Likes
Typos happen all the time. As long as the intent is clear, it’s generally accepted, but repetitive typos do reflect poorly on whomever drafted the documents and submitted them without thorough checking, though they are often the result of “fist-fight” document submissions done in rapid succession.
9 Likes
I believe the former LEO who advised MB on keeping all the vehicles locked was not the same person as the farrier who precipitated the FTB text on August 7.
The former LEO was actually a barefoot trimmer, not a farrier, as I recall. I don’t remember whether or not his advice to MB was related to the initial report from the private investigator. I thought his conversation with MB on the subject was earlier than that, but I won’t swear to it.
1 Like
There was an unconfirmed theory in a previous thread that perhaps MB did not want to front the money for the farrier’s bill on LK’s horses, if that was his standard practice at his barn.
Which would have meant RG or LK would have had to pay the farrier on the spot that day for shoeing her horses, if that was the issue.
7 Likes
So it was simply based on what anyone knew was going on, which frankly is more interesting. Or damning.
I wish we could hear from him about his reaction to what he was being told about what they knew.
But then… They can’t go over every tiny bit of info. If it was a TV show, it would become a series, of multiple seasons
