unclean hands doctrine in District of Columbia

2021Unclean Hands “The equitable doctrine of unclean hands only applies where there is misconduct by the plaintiff in the same transaction that is the subject of his claim.” Int’l Tours & Travel, Inc. v. Khalil, 491 A.2d 1149, 1155 (D.C. 1985) (“Unless the amount owed the plaintiff is the direct result of the unethical behavior . . . the clean hands doctrine does not bar the plaintiff’s recovery.”).

2009See Lee v. Foote, 481 A.2d 484, 485 (D.C.1984) (per curiam) (“When an express contract has *348 been repudiated or materially breached by the defendant, restitution for the value of the non-breaching party’s performance is available as an alternative to an action for damages on the contract.”); Ingber v. Ross, 479 A.2d 1256, 1263 (D.C.1984) (allowing restitution when ordinary relief for breach of contract is not adequate, and remedies are not cumulative to provide double recovery); see also International Tours & Travel, Inc. v. Khalil, 491 A.2d 1149, 1155 (D.C.1985) (“The equitable doctrine of

2026(We also note that a claim for the breach of warranty of habitability is not a claim in equity but a contract claim, see Bernstein v. Fernandez, 649 A.2d 1064, 1073 (D.C. 1991), and the doctrine of unclean hands does not apply where, as 23 Mr. Woodley did here, a plaintiff sues for damages, Truitt v. Miller, 407 A.2d 1073, 1080 (D.C. 1979)).

2026(We also note that a claim for the breach of warranty of habitability is not a claim in equity but a contract claim, see Bernstein v. Fernandez, 649 A.2d 1064, 1073 (D.C. 1991), and the doctrine of unclean hands does not apply where, as 23 Mr. Woodley did here, a plaintiff sues for damages, Truitt v. Miller, 407 A.2d 1073, 1080 (D.C. 1979)).

2021Music Antitrust Litig., 321 F.R.D. 64, 73, 96, 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (declining to exclude the unclean hands defense asserted by the digital-music price-fixing defendants, who alleged that members of the putative plaintiff class were illegally downloading digital music) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2021Ct. App. 2013)); cf. Monetary Funding Grp., Inc. v. Pluchino, 867 A.2d 841, 848 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005) (finding that where the borrower was unsophisticated 24 and the lender misled the borrower about the terms of the loan and failed to conduct a bona fide evaluation of the borrower’s ability to repay the loan, the trial court was correct to conclude that the borrower’s unclean hands defense precluded foreclosure).

2009See Lee v. Foote, 481 A.2d 484, 485 (D.C.1984) (per curiam) (“When an express contract has *348 been repudiated or materially breached by the defendant, restitution for the value of the non-breaching party’s performance is available as an alternative to an action for damages on the contract.”); Ingber v. Ross, 479 A.2d 1256, 1263 (D.C.1984) (allowing restitution when ordinary relief for breach of contract is not adequate, and remedies are not cumulative to provide double recovery); see also International Tours & Travel, Inc. v. Khalil, 491 A.2d 1149, 1155 (D.C.1985) (“The equitable doctrine of

2009See Lee v. Foote, 481 A.2d 484, 485 (D.C.1984) (per curiam) (“When an express contract has *348 been repudiated or materially breached by the defendant, restitution for the value of the non-breaching party’s performance is available as an alternative to an action for damages on the contract.”); Ingber v. Ross, 479 A.2d 1256, 1263 (D.C.1984) (allowing restitution when ordinary relief for breach of contract is not adequate, and remedies are not cumulative to provide double recovery); see also International Tours & Travel, Inc. v. Khalil, 491 A.2d 1149, 1155 (D.C.1985) (“The equitable doctrine of

2001See, e.g., In re Estate of Barnes, 754 A.2d 284 , 288 n. 6 (D.C.2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

2001See, e.g., In re Estate of Barnes, 754 A.2d 284 , 288 n. 6 (D.C.2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

1985Financial General Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, 523 F.Supp. 744, 772 (D.D.C.1981), vacated for lack of pendent jurisdiction, 220 U.S.App.D.C. 219 , 680 F.2d 768 (1982); Roote v. Roote, 33 App.D.C. 398, 403 (1909); 2 Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence § 399 (1941).

1985Financial General Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, 523 F.Supp. 744, 772 (D.D.C.1981), vacated for lack of pendent jurisdiction, 220 U.S.App.D.C. 219 , 680 F.2d 768 (1982); Roote v. Roote, 33 App.D.C. 398, 403 (1909); 2 Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence § 399 (1941).