Common Civil Suit Defense Litigation
In a civil suit, defendants commonly use affirmative and passive defenses, not including procedural errors that may provide defendant reprieve from the Plaintiff’s right to recovery. Some affirmative defenses must be pleaded in an Answer to the Complaint, and others can be alleged at any time during the legal proceedings. The following list is a simple analysis of each affirmative defense, including relevant case law that may be useful to learn about many of these complex legal defenses.
List of Common Civil Suit Defenses
Abandonment (in copyright infringement cases)
- Case Law: Kelley v. Chicago Park District 635 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2011)
- Explanation: This defense applies when a trademark owner discontinues the use of the trademark, showing an intent not to resume its use.
Accord and Satisfaction
- Case Law: Ogle v. Fuiten 102 Ill. 2d 356 (1984)
- Explanation: This defense is used when an agreement has been made to accept different terms from the original contract or claim, often involving a dispute over the amount owed.
Assumption of Risk
- Case Law: Alley v. Praschak Machine Co. 366 So.2d 661 (Miss.1979)
- Explanation: This applies when a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily exposes themselves to a dangerous condition, assuming the risk involved.
Breach of Contract
- Case Law: Wong v. PartyGaming Ltd. 589 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 2009)
- Explanation: This is claimed when one party breaks the terms of a contract without a legal excuse.
Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)
- Case Law: Allen v. McCurry 449 U.S. 90 (1980)
- Explanation: This doctrine bars a party from re-litigating issues that have been previously adjudicated in a judicial proceeding.
Duress
- Case Law: Urban Plumbing & Heating Co. v. United States 408 F.2d 382 (Ct. of Claims 1969)
- Explanation: This defense applies when one party illegally compels another to perform an act under threat or force.
Equitable Estoppel
- Case Law: American Bank and Trust Co. v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co. 194 So.2d 164 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1966)
- Explanation: This occurs when a party who has acted unfairly is barred from seeking legal relief in a court.
Failure of Condition(s) Precedent
- Case Law: Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. George E. Gibbons & Co. 537 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.1976)
- Explanation: This defense is used when certain actions which were required to happen before a contract’s performance did not occur.
Failure to Join Necessary or Indispensable Party
- Case Law: Hoyt Props. Inc. v. Prod. Res. Grp. L.L.C. 716 N.W.2d 366 (Minn.App.2006)
- Explanation: A case can be dismissed if a necessary party to the proceedings is not included.
Failure to Mitigate Damages
- Case Law: Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions 358
- Explanation: This is claimed when a plaintiff does not take reasonable steps to reduce their damages.
Force Majeure (Act of God)
- Case Law: Skandia Ins. Co. v. Star Shipping 173 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (S.D. Ala. 2001)
- Explanation: This defense applies when an unforeseen and uncontrollable event prevents a party from fulfilling a contract.
Fraud
- Case Law: Lazar v. Superior Court 12 Cal.4th 631 (1996)
- Explanation: This is a wrongful act of deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. The defendant must prove elements such as false representation, intent to deceive, and reliance on the misrepresentation.
Frustration of Purpose
- Case Law: Sabine Corp. v. ONG Western Inc. 725 F.Supp. 1157 (W.D.Okla. 1989)
- Explanation: This defense is used when unexpected circumstances significantly alter the purpose of a contract.
Judicial Estoppel
- Case Law: Vinson & Elkins v. Moran 946 S.W.2d 381 (1997)
- Explanation: This doctrine prevents a party from asserting a position in a case that contradicts their position in a prior proceeding.
Impossibility of Performance
- Case Law: Hawaii Civil Jury Instructions No. 15.20 on Contract – Impossibility of Performance
- Explanation: This is claimed when external unforeseeable events make it impossible to fulfill a contract.
Justification (Necessity/Self-defense)
- Case Law: US v. Andrade Rodriguez 531 F. 3d 721 (8th Circuit 2008)
- Explanation: This defense is used when actions are taken to protect oneself or others from harm.
Laches
- Case Law: State ex rel. Meyers v. Columbus 71 Ohio St.3d 603 646 N.E.2d 173 (1995)
- Explanation: This involves an unreasonable delay in pursuing a legal right or claim.
No Adequate Assurances/Anticipatory Breach
- Case Law: Alaska Civil Pattern Jury Instructions 24.04D
- Explanation: This defense is used when a party anticipates that the other party will not fulfill their contractual obligations.
Unclean Hands
- Case Law: Doe v. Deer Mountain Day Camp Inc. 682 F. Supp. 2d 324 (S.D. New York 2010)
- Explanation: This doctrine argues that a plaintiff is not entitled to a remedy due to unethical or bad faith actions.
Novation
- Case Law: Sans Souci v. Division of Fla. Land Sales & Condominiums Dept. of Business Regulation 421 So.2d 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Explanation: This involves replacing an old contract with a new one.
Promissory Estoppel
- Case Law: Aubrey v. Workman 384 S.W.2d 389 (Tex.Civ. App.: Fort Worth 1964)
- Explanation: This defense is used when a defendant acts in response to a plaintiff’s promise. This doctrine prevents a promisor from reneging on a promise when the promisee has relied on it to their detriment.
Ratification
- Case Law: Motel Enterprises Inc. v. Nobani 784 SW 2d 545 (Tex: Court of Appeals 1990)
- Explanation: This occurs when a party approves or sanctions prior acts of a defendant, making later complaints about the act unjustified.
Res Judicata
- Case Law: People v. Barragan 32 Cal.4th 236 (2004)
- Explanation: This doctrine prevents litigation of claims that have been adjudicated or could have been adjudicated in a previous claim.
Unconscionability
- Case Law: Collins v. Click Camera & Video Inc. 621 N.E.2d 1294 (Ohio Ct. App.1993)
- Explanation: This applies when a contract is so one-sided that it lacks a meaningful choice for one party due to the other’s superior bargaining power.
Undue Influence
- Case Law: Kar v. Hogan 251 NW 2d 77 (Mich: Supreme Court 1976)
- Explanation: This occurs when a person in a position of trust abuses that trust to influence another’s decisions in a transaction.
Unilateral Mistake of Fact
- Case Law: Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2018) 330
- Explanation: This defense focuses on the mistake and its impact on the contract.
Unjust Enrichment
- Case Law: Henry M. Butler Inc. v. Trizec Properties Inc. 524 So.2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Explanation: This defense is claimed when one party benefits at the expense of another in a manner that is unjust.
Usury
- Case Law: Ghirardo v. Antonioli 883 P. 2d 960 (Cal: Supreme Court 1994)
- Explanation: This defense pertains to charging an illegally high rate of interest on a loan.
Violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act (RESPA)
- Case Law: LaSalle Bank NA v. Shearon 19 Misc. 3d 433 (2008)
- Explanation: This defense is used in cases where there’s a failure to comply with RESPA’s requirements.
Violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
- Case Law: Inge v. Rock Financial Corp. 281 F. 3d 613 (2002)
- Explanation: This defense arises when lenders fail to comply with TILA’s disclosure requirements.
Waiver
- Case Law: Fetner v. Rocky Mount Marble & Granite Works 251 N.C. 296 (1959)
- Explanation: A waiver occurs when a party voluntarily relinquishes a known right, claim, or privilege.
Defenses to Defamation
- Key Elements:
- Truth:The most absolute defense against a defamation claim.
- Opinion:Statements framed clearly as opinions are generally protected.
- Privilege:Some statements made in certain contexts (e.g., in court) are privileged.
- Factors Courts Consider:
- Nature of the Statement:Whether it’s a fact or opinion.
- Source and Context:Where and how the statement was made.
- Harm to Reputation:Evidence of actual harm caused.
- Public Figure Status:Public figures have a higher burden to prove malice.
- Jurisdictional Variations:
- Defamation laws vary significantly around the world. In some jurisdictions, defamation is a criminal offense, while in others, it’s a civil matter. Defamation cases, especially those involving online content, require balancing free speech rights with the protection of reputation. They often involve complex legal questions about the nature of the statement, the intent of the speaker, and the context in which the statement was made. Anyone considering a defamation lawsuit, or who is accused of defamation, should consult with a qualified attorney to understand their legal rights and obligations in their specific jurisdiction.
At Mir & Bashir, we believe in empowering our clients with knowledge. Understanding the different types of legal remedies available is crucial in seeking justice. Whether you are seeking compensation or a fair resolution to a dispute, our experienced attorneys are here to guide you through the legal process to find the most appropriate remedy for your situation.
Why Choose Mir & Bashir?
- Personalized Attention:Each client receives dedicated and personalized legal services tailored to their unique situation.
- Experienced Attorneys:Our team comprises skilled lawyers with extensive experience in civil litigation.
- Client-Centric Approach:We prioritize your needs and work tirelessly to achieve the best possible outcomes.
- Results-Driven:Our track record speaks for itself, with numerous successful settlements and verdicts.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does the assumption of risk defense work?
Assumption of risk applies when a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily accepts the dangers associated with a particular activity or condition. If proven, this defense can prevent the plaintiff from recovering damages by showing they understood the risks involved. It typically arises in personal injury cases where the event leading to harm was foreseeable or unavoidable.
What is the role of estoppel in civil litigation?
Estoppel prevents a party from asserting claims or facts that contradict previous statements or actions. For example, collateral estoppel bars re-litigating issues already decided in prior legal proceedings, while equitable estoppel stops unfair legal claims when one party has relied on another’s misleading conduct. This doctrine promotes fairness and judicial efficiency in civil cases.
When can the defense of force majeure be used?
Force majeure is invoked when unforeseeable and uncontrollable events, such as natural disasters or acts of God, prevent a party from fulfilling contractual obligations. This defense excuses performance without liability when external circumstances beyond control make it impossible or impractical to comply with the contract terms.
What is the significance of the failure to join a necessary party?
A case may be dismissed if all necessary or indispensable parties are not included in the lawsuit. This ensures that all parties with a stake in the dispute have an opportunity to be heard and that the court’s decision is comprehensive and enforceable. Omitting an essential party can lead to incomplete or unfair judgments.
How does the laches defense affect a civil claim?
Laches is a defense based on an unreasonable delay in asserting a legal right, which results in prejudice to the opposing party. If a plaintiff waits too long to bring a claim without valid justification, the court may refuse to grant relief. This encourages timely pursuit of claims and discourages prolonged uncertainty.