This maxim is not a moral conviction, but an enforceable constitutional state. It does not require all plaintiffs to have impeccable records to prevail, but the court will refuse to assist someone whose cause of action is based on their own misconduct toward the other party. For example, if a wealthy woman gets her future spouse to sign a prenuptial agreement giving her a symbolic amount of $500 in the event of divorce, and she exhibits consistent postmarital behavior that leads to divorce, a court could refuse to enforce the agreement. This maxim reflects an aspect of the principle known as the clean hands doctrine. I am glad that these legal maxims and their meaning have helped you. A legal maxim is an established principle or legal form, a kind of aphorism and general maxim. The word is apparently a variant of the Latin maxima, but the latter word is not found in surviving texts of Roman law with a designation exactly analogous to a legal maxim in medieval or modern definition, but the treatises of many Roman jurists on regular definitions and sententiae iuris are to some extent collections of maxims. Most Latin maxims date back to the Middle Ages in European states that used Latin as their legal language. Just as in geometry, we have axioms; In law, we have legal maxims and idioms. Maxims are used in legal documents and are also required in legal exams such as CLAT, Justiz and semester exams.

A confiscation is the total loss of a right or thing because something is not done properly. A total loss is usually a rather severe punishment. If a sanction is not proportionate to the seriousness of the fault, it is too severe. In the interests of fairness and clear conscience, a fair court will reject unreasonable forfeiture. This maxim applies particularly strongly to land ownership, an interest that the law greatly respects. Ownership of land should never be lost for some trivial reason – for example, a delay of a few days in completing a transaction for the purchase of a home. Two maxims form the primary foundations of justice: equality will not suffer injustice, and equality acts in personam. The first explains the whole purpose of justice and the second emphasizes the personal nature of justice. Fairness takes into account the circumstances of the individuals in each case and provides for a remedy addressed to the defendant, who must act accordingly to provide the plaintiff with the appropriate remedy. Unless a law extends the powers of a court of law, it can only indirectly issue decrees concerning property and formulate them as judgments against persons. These are said to be the two oldest maxims of justice.

Everyone agrees with them. This maxim means that a party suing in equity can recover what it seeks, not financial damages as compensation. This maxim is the remedy for specific performance. This maxim precludes redress for anyone guilty of improper conduct in this case. It prevents the person with “dirty hands” from receiving a positive recovery, no matter how unfairly the person`s opponent treated them. The maxim is the basis of the doctrine of pure hands. Its purpose is to protect the integrity of the court. Not only does it deplore illegal acts, but it also refuses to facilitate bad behaviour, which should be discouraged for reasons of public order.

A court will ask if the misconduct was intentional. This rule is not intended to punish recklessness or error. It is possible that the illegal behaviour is not an act but an omission. For example, someone who hires an agent to represent him and sits silently while the agent misleads another party in the negotiations is just as responsible for false statements as if he had made them himself. Simply put, this is a fundamental legal maxim in agency law. This is a maxim that is often mentioned in the discussion of the employer`s liability for the employee`s actions in the sense of enforcement agents (indirectly, second-hand).