They are normally considered an equitable remedy. In some cases there may be more equitable methods of compensation.
Rescission is an equitable remedy. Legal remedies deal in monetary damages. Rescission of a contract puts both parties back into their position before the contract.
An equitable remedy is different from a (money) damages remedy, usually because no amount of money would solve the plaintiff's problem. In other cases, such as contract modification, it is more efficient to restate the agreement than to guess at what the parties' damages might be.
Yes, and restitution. Many remedies are available for breach contract.
A contract is a legally enforceable agreementbetween two or more parties with mutual obligations. The remedy at law for breach of contract is "damages" or monetary compensation. In equity, the remedy can be specific performance of the contract or an injunction. Both remedies award the damaged party the "benefit of the bargain" or expectation damages, which are greater than mere reliance damages, as in promissory estoppel.
A monetary award for damages.
If the plaintiff ASKS for, or agrees to ACCEPT, an equitable remedy, this could be true statement.
There are several: 1. Recission, where the contract is cancelled, both parties excused, and any advance payments are returned, 2. Reformation, where the contract is altered to reflect what was actually intended, 3. Specific performance, where the court orders that the exact terms of the contract are executed, 4. Compensatory damages, to cover losses incurred as a result of non-performance, 5, Consequential and incidental damages, to cover "forseeable losses" as a result of the breach 6. Punative damages, to punish a person for willfull breach 7. Liquidated damages, those specified in the contract if the terms are not met.
Generally, you can't have anybody arrested for a breach of contract. The usual remedy is to sue for damages in a civil action.
No. Most contracts have some kind of remedy for breaches built into them, but, if yours does not, you still have to show how the breach caused you a financial loss (damages). Without a remedy in the contract itself, your chance at receiving damages is pretty small.
Breaking a "no-compete" provision of a contract will subject the person breaking it to a lawsuit for damages under both a breach of contract action and the tort of interference with business opportunity action. Those damages would be reimbursement to the other party for all income it lost because of the violation of the no compete clause. Many no-compete contract provisions will also state other types of damages that could be recovered, such as forfeiting all income earned and paying attorneys' fees. There might also be punitive damages. Punitive damages are not a usual remedy for breach of contract cases, but they are a remedy for intentional torts as interference with a business opportunity most likely is.
This division arose because in some cases money was not an appropriate remedy. When the dispute is over an heirloom, for example, the damaged party would want the heirloom back instead of its monetary value,
No, the two are completely different legal concepts and have nothing to do with one another. A broken, or breach of contract falls under the law on contracts. Conversion, or civil theft, falls under the law of torts. The remedy for a breach of contract is to give the non-breaching party damages so that he gets the benefit of his original bargain. The remedy for conversion is compensatory damages in the amount of the value of the item converted plus, perhaps punitive damages, since conversion is an intentional tort.