In this case, the evidence strongly suggests that the plaintiff asked the defendant to participate in the acquisition of the property in question, at least in part, in order to avoid, protect and/or divert assets of its creditors and to use the name and creditworthiness of the defendant to obtain loans to which it would not otherwise have been entitled. However, the defendants have made no indication of how the plaintiff`s obvious efforts to evade his creditors would have harmed him. Although the transcript shows that the plaintiff borrowed millions of dollars from the defendant, the plaintiff did not deny this or attempt to excuse the repayment of this debt, unless he claimed to have repaid part of it. Since the interlocutory judgment referred the case to a special arbitrator to handle the accounting and provided increased compensation for the defendant to the extent that he was entitled to funds, the Supreme Court adequately protected the defendant`s interest in the plaintiff`s legitimate debts to him. Therefore, to the extent that the plaintiff had dirty hands, this did not preclude the court from imposing a de facto trust on the property in question. Different courts have considered different factors to identify the existence of “dirty hands”. The Michigan Supreme Court also approved this use of doctrine in Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich 372 (2006). The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit for workplace discrimination and financial compensation.

The trial court decided to dismiss the case under the dirty hands doctrine after the plaintiff and her lawyer tried to tarnish the jury pool before trial. The complainant and her lawyer repeatedly disclosed inadmissible evidence to the media, even though the judge had ordered them to arrest them and warn them of the risks of continuing their actions. Because they did not comply, the judge found them guilty of misconduct in the litigation and dismissed the case. V. Factors Considered by Courts in Determining Dirty Hands Depending on the case, the dirty hands defence may be either a fair defence or a positive defence. An equitable application asks the court to order a person to do or not do a particular act. This injunction is called an injunction and its purpose is to prevent future wrongdoing or to provide relief from something that cannot be corrected by money. A fair claim would be appropriate for someone who has problems with intruders. A court could order intruders not to enter the property. The legal definition of the clean hands doctrine states that a party performing a contract or seeking fair compensation must prove that he or she is not guilty of any wrongdoing or conduct of misconduct. “Impure hands” may affect the jurisdiction of a judicial body36, the admissibility of an action37, the substantive settlement of the dispute38 and any post-award proceedings. The dirty hands doctrine applies if the complaining party proves that it was guilty of immoral and unscrupulous conduct, and even then, only if the alleged conduct is directly related to the subject matter of the dispute and the party seeking to invoke the doctrine has been harmed by that conduct.

Moreover, exoneration is denied under the clean hands doctrine, not as a protection of a defendant, but as an obstruction of the plaintiff and as a matter of public policy to protect the integrity of the court. In Florida contract law, the dirty hands doctrine could prevent a party from enforcing a contract if they are guilty of fraud, deception, or unscrupulous conduct. If you enter into a contract with a company that you consider dishonest, you may be able to use the dirty hands doctrine to prevent the company from enforcing the agreement. In this case, it would not be considered one of the many types of breach of contract for which the company could sue you. The doctrine of dirty hands is a just remedy, that is, it applies in cases where no financial damage is awarded. Using the example above, the intruder may be able to claim a dirty hands defense if the owner has given them permission to enter the property before taking trespass lawsuit.