In pari delicto (potior/melior est conditio possidentis), Latin for "in equal fault (better is the condition of the possessor)"[1] is a legal term used to indicate that two persons or entities are equally at fault, whether the malfeasance in question is a crime or tort. The phrase is most commonly used by courts when relief is being denied to both parties in a civil action because of wrongdoing by both parties. The phrase means, in essence, that since both parties are equally at fault, the court will not involve itself in resolving one side's claim over the other, and whoever possesses whatever is in dispute may continue to do so in the absence of a superior claim. The doctrine is similar to the defense of unclean hands, both of which are equitable defenses. Comparative fault and contributory negligence are not the same as in pari delicto, though all of these doctrines have similar policy rationales.
The same principle can be applied when neither party is at fault if they have equal right to the disputed property, in which case the maxim of law becomes in aequali jure (melior est conditio possidentis).[2] Again the court will not involve itself in the dispute without a superior claim being brought before it.
The same principle can be applied when neither party is at fault if they have equal right to the disputed property, in which case the maxim of law becomes in aequali jure (melior est conditio possidentis).[2] Again the court will not involve itself in the dispute without a superior claim being brought before it.
3.2.1. AS A FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, Answering Party alleges that the Complaint and each purported cause of action thereof fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Answering Party.
3.2.2. AS A SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, Answering Party alleges that Y’S injuries, loss and/or damages, if any there were, were aggravated by Y’S FAILURE to use reasonable diligence to avoid or to mitigate the same.
3.2.3. AS A THIRD SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, Answering Party alleges that Y is barred from asserting any causes of action by virtue of its consent to the alleged, acts or conditions about which it complains.
3.2.1 AS A FOURTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, Answering Party alleges that the action is barred under the doctrine of laches.
3.2.1 AS A FIFTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, Answering Party alleges that the action is barred under the doctrine of unclean hands.
3.2.1 AS A SIXTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, Answering Party alleges that the action is barred under the doctrine of in peri delicto.
3.2.1 AS A SEVENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, Answering Party alleges that they have suffered damages by reason of Y’s conduct; and that if Answering Party are found liable for any damages to Y, Answering Party has a right of offset against Y.
3.2.1 AS A EIGHTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, Answering Party alleges that the action is barred under the bad faith. Y sold the business to parties other than LEE without giving first right of refusal to LEE. Y’s continuation of common goods delivery was intentionally bad faithful. Y’s conduct of non-continuation after payment of the beginning poultry food was bad faith. Checks were cashed and substitute checks were given prior to the filing of the Complaint but Y’s bad faith was present.
3.2.2. AS A SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, Answering Party alleges that Y’S injuries, loss and/or damages, if any there were, were aggravated by Y’S FAILURE to use reasonable diligence to avoid or to mitigate the same.
3.2.3. AS A THIRD SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, Answering Party alleges that Y is barred from asserting any causes of action by virtue of its consent to the alleged, acts or conditions about which it complains.
3.2.1 AS A FOURTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, Answering Party alleges that the action is barred under the doctrine of laches.
3.2.1 AS A FIFTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, Answering Party alleges that the action is barred under the doctrine of unclean hands.
3.2.1 AS A SIXTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, Answering Party alleges that the action is barred under the doctrine of in peri delicto.
3.2.1 AS A SEVENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, Answering Party alleges that they have suffered damages by reason of Y’s conduct; and that if Answering Party are found liable for any damages to Y, Answering Party has a right of offset against Y.
3.2.1 AS A EIGHTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint and each and every cause of action thereof, Answering Party alleges that the action is barred under the bad faith. Y sold the business to parties other than LEE without giving first right of refusal to LEE. Y’s continuation of common goods delivery was intentionally bad faithful. Y’s conduct of non-continuation after payment of the beginning poultry food was bad faith. Checks were cashed and substitute checks were given prior to the filing of the Complaint but Y’s bad faith was present.
RSS Feed
