 As noted in the previous lesson, the court's taking actions to recover damages had some value, but it was very limited. Treating torts as a personal quarrel to be adjudicated shifted the cost of the court action to be a burden upon those who use the system. The court involvement addressed the tort as a matter of business, more than a matter of justice. In order to make it work, the courts allowed attorneys to engage in what would be a criminal wrong for the average person, getting their earnings from a portion of the damages they could collect for their clients. Again, it remarkably increased the cost of the parties who engaged a court to settle their personal disagreements. The courts that addressed recovery of damages were the common law courts. In English law, a second court authority was established to focus on justice, and it was given the limited authority to issue orders instead of just judgments. It could act to best assure justice where the situation could not be resolved by restitution of the one injured. Where these were separate courts in the English system, our American Revolution upset the authority of the equity courts. There was no sovereign government to issue orders to sovereign citizens. Yet, the value of having these equity courts was so obvious, and the legal principles and processes so well developed and established that it made no sense just to deny the services to the people of the United States. The direction of solution was accordingly written into the Constitution in the passage addressing the establishment of a Supreme Court. It was authorized to hear matters in both law and equity. This was accepted for both federal and state courts. Both were able to hear actions in either law or equity. Though the procedures and court actions remained separate, and the court had to sit in one mode or the other, they were both available to those who would use the courts for tort actions. The one who initiated the action could by selecting the type of relief they sought, determine whether the court would receive the issue as a matter of law or of equity. Among the most used equity services are orders that stop official actions that might cause damages to people. The injunction is an order that directs everyone involved in an official and otherwise authorized action to stop their efforts until it can be examined by the court to assure that continuation of the action is not unreasonably damaging to the one who gained the injunction. It is especially potent as a check upon sovereign government actions. It is a way to gain a legal review prior to letting the action go forward. It is a court acting as the people's advocate in addressing what other areas of government or even other courts seemed inclined to do in their official capacity. A law to open access to commercial fishermen into areas that have traditionally been restricted on behalf of an Indian tribe could easily have the tribal representative request an injunction to prevent the depletion of their traditional source of food and income. The injunction on implementing the law would prevent what could be long term damages to the Indians, but only delay the benefit for commercial fishermen. It would keep the status quo until the matter was under review by the court sitting in equity. The order is also generally harmless to the government officers involved. It only delays their actions while the potential for injustice is under review. The level of evidence is accordingly not that great when it comes to gaining an injunction. If there is an indication of injustice and delay of the action is not a cause of harm to others then the injunction has a reasonable chance of being signed. The wrong that is threatened still has to be severe or to affect injustice for many or this special order is not appropriate. The courts are not there to manage over other areas of government but to provide citizen relief. If on review the harm is found to be unacceptable then the injunction can be made permanent effectively stopping the action before it causes injury. If it is found to be reasonable even if the Indians who fish like take some damage the order is lifted and the action on the law can go forward. That is the nature of injunction. The important legal perspective is that the decision will be made on potential harm not on the authority of those who are taking official action. It is an act based on potential damage not some judgment addressing the ability of the government officers to pass the law in the normal course of their duties. A more personal application of this type of order is seen in the issue of a protective order. If Jane is divorcing Robert claiming that he is abusive the courts can has equity relief issue Robert in order to prevent him from even trying to approach her outside of court actions until the divorce action is settled. Again Jane's claim of abuse is not sufficient to give this extraordinary relief. There would have to be some evidence of past abuse like hospital records of treatment for wounds consistent with this type of abuse or photographs taken and witnessed to be in accord with their claims. The act again is unlikely to work any harm on Robert should he already have moved out. If he asks for some access to the family home to get property it is likely to be made a condition of the order. Again this is not an action against Robert it is an action to prevent a tort or crime that appears likely from evidence until the matter can be brought into court for resolution. The police will take notice of the order on Jane's request and enforce it as necessary. You should note that the court sitting in equity has a great deal of discretion as to when and how such an order will issue. It is not a judgment based relief but an order issued by the court acting under its granted authority. Injunctive orders are in accord with the court's acceptance that the state and federal governments in the United States are sovereigns. Sitting in equity the court can also issue orders to those in public office to specifically perform the duties of their office. This relief is called mandamus. Joshua a federal supervisor tried to fire Frank an employee who he found unacceptable. He even started the procedure to remove the employee from the official roles and stop further pay. On higher review Joshua's action was reversed but he never does the paperwork to restore Frank's pay status. Appeal to the higher ups in the organization has not been productive. Joshua has apparently convinced them that his decision to terminate Frank was reasonable and he will not interfere on the employee's behalf. After six weeks without pay Frank takes the matter into court. The action requests issue of mandamus to the senior officer of the employing organization. It is an order to reinstate Frank and deliver back pay to the end of the current pay period. This is within the purpose of mandamus. It is an order to a responsible officer to fulfill the duties of their office as to reinstating Frank as an employee and assuring that he gets paid. If there is further delay it is likely to be brought before the judge for determination of whether legal sanctions are appropriate. If the order is not obeyed the issuing judge can also issue a summons to those named in the order to assess their personal damages or even carcerations for failure to perform in accord with the order he signed. A more and mundane application of this ability to sign orders might be realized in regular tort actions. Jill an heir duties to receive a specific bequest of her mother's good china. She finds that her older sister has taken it for herself removing it prior to the bequest. On contact her sister offers to pay the reasonable cost of the light dishes which is what a suit for damages would award. Jill can address the matter in equity seeking an order to deliver the family heir loom to her. The court can issue an equity order requiring the specific performance of the delivery. Specific performance is encountered in contract actions that involve unique things like land, artwork, and people. Where there is an established contract and one party has performed their part to gain some irreplaceable benefit through the contract the other party can be ordered to do their part. This only happens where money damages will not yield justice. In order of specific performance is only used where it is necessary to achieve justice. Rico agrees to rent his summer place on Lake Michigan to Wanda if she is willing to see to some minor maintenance and minor repairs. She accepts and purchases the maintenance and repair services from the Allister Company. Rico refuses to sign the contract with Wanda because he has an offer to rent it at three times the price and signs the alternative contract. Rico offers to pay her maintenance and repair contract as restitution. Based on unjust enrichment Wanda can take this into court seeking both the cost of her maintenance and repair and the amount that Rico gained by signing the contract with others. Where Rico has offered restitution in accordance with the relief available through provable damages the court can grant justice based on his less than honest dealings with Jill. The justice concept is that Rico should not benefit from dishonoring his promise to rent to Jill. That type of behavior rewards the breach of the agreement he had with Jill. The court may well grant her the unjust enrichment as part of his resolution. That is a matter of equity rather than in law. Unjust enrichment decisions are not meant to be punitive actions. They are meant to prevent a tort visa from benefiting from the actions that wrongs someone else. It is a justice action that can end up being beneficial to the one who is wrong. Peter feels that he was wrong by Julia who took in the dog that Peter abandoned and Peter is willing to bear the cost of getting even. He notes that she has taken the pet in violation of the provisions under which she is renting a house to live in. He goes to the landlord noting that the animal is living with her in violation of her contract and he has a few pictures of damages that appear to come from this. He offers to pay the expenses of suing her for the damages and terminating her living arrangements. This is a tort of maintenance. It is interfering in someone else's relationship through promoting a court action. It is stirring up trouble in a way that involves misuse of the courts to satisfy his purpose even though he is not a party to the matter that is brought into court for resolution. Maintenance is a third party involvement, a legal action by someone who is not even a party to the court action. It is an action that puts damages associated with using the courts upon someone else. It is abuse of the courts using the damaging nature of legal process to commit a wrong against someone else. The courts can in equity act against the one who maintains an action to the detriment of a third party. They are considered as committing a tort by their actions and the one who is suffering the result can treat it as an intentional injury. The court does not have to allow people to use court actions to abuse third parties. That is a matter in equity and the courts can assess damages against the one who is interfering. The limits of damage recovery action have been a challenge from early times and English government responded by establishing courts of equity. These actions apply sovereign authorities and have very wide judicial discretion to issue or not issue a very few well-defined remedies that are available. Actions in equity can be potent, even preventing authorized action by other government officers when this is seen as a necessary to assure justice. This is an area of law where the courts gain respect and awe of both citizens and leaders for a directly seize to the purpose for their being courts. The promotion of justice through what the court does.