clean hands doctrine in New Jersey

2008In A. Hollander & Son, supra, 2 N.J. at 247 , 66 A.2d 319 , the court cautioned that the doctrine “is not so rigid nor should it be so construed as to allow or permit an unconscionable gain to the wrongdoer at the complainant’s expense.” Primarily, plaintiff relies on Glasofer Motors v. Osterlund, Inc., supra, for what he refers to as the “modern view.” Plaintiff maintains that Glasofer Motors stands for the proposition that where the defendant is a wrongdoer, engaging in predatory conduct in violation of law and public policy, unclean hands will not bar a plaintiffs suit.

1951These cases, or some of them, were cited in A. Hollander & Son, Inc. v. Imperial, etc., Corp., 2 N.J. 235, 247 (1949), but the court cautioned, "The doctrine, however, is not so rigid nor should it be so construed as to allow or permit an unconscionable gain to the wrongdoer at the complainant's expense." The discretionary nature of the whole clean hands doctrine was stressed by Judge Jacobs in Medical Fabrics Co. v. D.C.

1969Va. 135 , 167 S.E. 89, 91-92 (1932) the court stated: *227 "[I]t would seem a strict application of the clean hands doctrine, without more, is merely a punishment of the litigants, and omits consideration of the interests of those innocent but who are adversely affected by a decree which leaves the parties in the situation where they have placed themselves.

1969Va. 135 , 167 S. E. 89, 91-92 (1932) the court stated: “[I]t would seem a strict application of the clean hands doctrine, without more, is merely a punishment of the litigants, and omits consideration of the interests of those innocent but who are adversely affected by a decree which leaves the parties in the situation where they have placed themselves.

1980It argues, and we agree, that this maxim "does not repel all sinners from courts of equity, nor does it apply to every unconscientious act or inequitable conduct ..." Neubeck v. Neubeck, 94 N.J.

1934In Neubeck v. Neubeck, 94 N.J.

1987Bond v. Bond, 36 N.J.

1986Rasmussen v. Nielsen, 142 N.J.

1984Courts must apply the clean hands doctrine with just discretion, Goodwin Motor Corp. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. 172 N.J.Super. 263, 271 (App.Div.1980), and not exercise their equitable powers arbitrarily.

1981See, also, Lamp Liquors, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 563 F. 2d 425 (10 Cir.1977), and Semke v. Enid Automobile Dealers Ass'n, 456 F. 2d 1361, 1369-1370 (10 Cir.1072) (violation of a state statute unrelated to the antitrust laws does not bar a federal antitrust suit). [2] We conclude that the trial judge erred in ruling that the clean hands doctrine bars Glasofer's antitrust claims.

1981See, also, Lamp Liquors, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 563 F. 2d 425 (10 Cir.1977), and Semke v. Enid Automobile Dealers Ass'n, 456 F. 2d 1361, 1369-1370 (10 Cir.1072) (violation of a state statute unrelated to the antitrust laws does not bar a federal antitrust suit). [2] We conclude that the trial judge erred in ruling that the clean hands doctrine bars Glasofer's antitrust claims.

1980Untermann v. Untermann, 19 N.J. 507, 518 (1955).

1956That doctrine is largely equitable and, when applicable, is applied flexibly upon considerations “ That make for the advancement of right and justice.’ ” Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co., 321 U. S. 383, 387 , 64 S. Ct. 622, 625 , 88 L.

1956That doctrine is largely equitable and, when applicable, is applied flexibly upon considerations “ That make for the advancement of right and justice.’ ” Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co., 321 U. S. 383, 387 , 64 S. Ct. 622, 625 , 88 L.

1955See Yeiser v. Rogers, 19 N.J. 284 (1955).

1951In general, its requirement is not that suitors seeking relief in equity "shall have led blameless lives" ( Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216, 229 , 78 L.Ed. 1219, 1227 (1934)), but rather that they shall not have acted fraudulently or unconscionably with respect to the particular controversy in issue.

1951In general, its requirement is not that suitors seeking relief in equity "shall have led blameless lives" ( Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216, 229 , 78 L.Ed. 1219, 1227 (1934)), but rather that they shall not have acted fraudulently or unconscionably with respect to the particular controversy in issue.

1950See also Clickner v. Clickner, 95 N.J.