There are three distinct categories of remedies in common law systems. The remedy originates in the English courts and takes the form of a monetary payment to the victim, commonly referred to as damages or repletive. The purpose of compensation is to repair the harm caused to the victim by a party in violation. In the history of the English legal system, the remedy existed only in the form of financial compensation, and the victim must therefore apply to a separate system if he or she wishes other forms of compensation. Although courtrooms and proceedings have been integrated, the distinction between monetary claims and measures still exists. [6] Non-monetary compensation refers to the second category of judicial remedies, equitable remedies. This type of action stems from the equitable jurisdiction developed by the English Court of Chancery and the Court of Exchequer. Declaratory actions are the third category of judicial remedies. Unlike the other two categories, declaratory actions generally involve a court determining how the law is to be applied to certain facts without the parties ordering it. [7] Courts provide reasons for deciding many types of issues, including whether a person has legal status, who owns property, whether a law has a particular meaning, or what rights exist under a contract. [7] While these are three basic categories of common law remedies, there are also a handful of others (such as the Reformation and the Resignation, both of which relate to treaties whose terms must be rewritten or reversed). It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish a civil sanction from a criminal sanction.
In United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242 (1980), the United States Supreme Court established a two-tiered test. An appeal is a form of judicial enforcement of a legal action arising from successful civil proceedings. Remedies fall into three general categories: Damages as reparation are a sum of money intended to compensate a person who has suffered legally identifiable harm. As noted above, claims for damages differ from restitution measures: damages focus on the loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the injury, while restitution focuses on the unfair profit of the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to symbolic damages in cases where he does not suffer actual damage or cannot prove any damage. [6] Although the amount of symbolic damages is usually small, the plaintiff may invoke the award of symbolic damages as justification for seeking penalties or challenging a violation of his or her rights that form the basis of the action, as is customary in constitutional rights cases.
[8] In English and American jurisprudence, there is a legal maxim (although sometimes respected in case of infringement) that there is a remedy for every right; Where there is no recourse, there is no right. That is, the legislature purports to provide appropriate legal remedies to protect rights. Since the intent of punitive damages is generally not to compensate the claimant, it is often the case that the plaintiff awards only part of them at the discretion of the judges and that they serve only to supplement the damages. [6] In both common law and mixed common law systems, the right of appeal distinguishes between an appeal (e.g., a certain amount of pecuniary damages) and equitable relief (e.g., specific injunction or enforcement). Another type of remedy available in these systems is declaratory action, where a court determines the rights of the parties without awarding damages or seeking equitable relief. The type of remedies applicable in specific cases depends on the nature of the unlawful act and its responsibility. [1] In the past, the remedies available in civil proceedings were divided into remedies available at law or in equity. Remedies have traditionally been entitled to a jury trial, while fair remedies are limited to a trial. In general, claims for damages are legally available remedies, meaning that a plaintiff has the right to ask a jury to decide how much damages she is entitled to. See Dobbs, Dan B. Dobbs Law of Remedies: Damages, Equity, Restitution (2nd ed.) in § 1.2.St. Paul, Minnesota: West Pub. Co., 1993 (hereinafter “Dobbs Law of Remedies”). Essentially, the jury is tasked with deciding the amount of compensation needed to restore the plaintiff`s health or the value of the plaintiff`s losses. This is easier said than done, as harm often includes categories that are not easily quantifiable, such as emotional distress and pain and suffering. Because of their historical origins, monetary damages are often referred to as remedies, while coercive and declaratory remedies are called equitable remedies. This chapter examines the nature of civil injustice from the perspective of the right of appeal, challenging the assumption that remedies respond exclusively to violations of the fundamental right and, in turn, the related assumption that a civil injustice is nothing more than a violation of a primary right and a corresponding obligation. This is where remedies correct wrongdoing, but it is important to recognize that the nature of an injustice – and therefore the choice of an appropriate or appropriate remedy – is not determined solely by the nature of the right violated by the perpetrator.
The analysis in this chapter is framed as a critique of the claim of remedial justice theorists that there are close conceptual and normative links between primary rights and duties on the one hand and remedies on the other. It submits that the remedies respond in part to the infringements and thus to the ex ante positioning of the parties as a point of law. However, the expectation of responsiveness underdetermines the choice between different types of remedies and those that affect the level of redress that should be awarded to a successful claimant. An important aspect of any civil action is the remedy that a party can exercise for the damage suffered that gave rise to the action. Generally, there are three types of remedies that may be granted by a court in civil litigation, including: (1) claims for damages, (2) restitution claims, and (3) equitable remedies such as declaratory judgments and injunctions. Remedies can and are generally decided on a case-by-case basis under U.S. law and take into account many different facts, including the amount of harm caused to the victim. Corrective measures can also be defined in advance for a whole category of cases. For example, there may be a fixed fine for all violations of a legal provision, regardless of the amount of damage caused in the individual case. [12] In some cases, legislation prescribes the amount of damages and not the calculation of the injury suffered by the plaintiff.
