A Generic Millennial Ad, made using stock footage from Dissolve.

Link

(If you can not see a video above view this post on Quipsologies)

Over the past two days I attended an outstanding conference on equity organized by Irit Samet, Dennis Klimchuk and Henry Smith. It was at King’s College, London, and the papers will be published in an Oxford University Press volume called “Philosophical Foundations of Equity.” So equity is on my mind.

In this post, I want to offer a few thoughts about an equitable doctrine that has been showing up in a lot of recent Supreme Court opinions, namely “the balance of equities.” It is also called “the undue hardship defense.” This doctrine is concerned with the hardships that an injunction might impose on the defendant (relative to hardships for the plaintiff), as well as the defendant’s fault. This doctrine is strongly associated with the court’s power (and duty) to tailor equitable relief to the circumstances of the case.

The balance of hardships is best thought of as a defense against equitable relief. But it’s not the kind of defense that can be waived by the defendant. Instead, like other equitable defenses, such as laches and unclean hands, it is meant not only to protect the parties but also to protect the court and prevent the misuse of its equitable powers.

So what is the balance of equities? Let’s start with what it isn’t. Don’t be misled by the word balance. This is not a balancing test (thank goodness). It’s not just an adding up the costs and benefits for the plaintiff and defendant. Equity wasn’t, and isn’t, a kind of utilitarian calculating machine. No surprise here — even if you think equitable doctrine should strive for results justified by cost-benefit analysis, remember that this doctrine isn’t “the test for equitable relief.” It’s only a defense.

It is about the burdens, or costs, on the plaintiff and defendant. But it’s also about fault. So is it a costs-benefits-fault-everything-in-the-hopper test? No.

The doctrine has a structure. The classic case is a building encroachment. B builds a house that is one foot over A’s property line. A sues, wins on the merits and asks for an injunction. B invokes the balance of equities or undue hardship defense: That is, B says “to remove the trespass I will have to tear down my house, a burden that is out of all proportion to the benefit that A will get.” Then A might counter: “Yes, but you knew you were building on my property, so it doesn’t matter that the burden on you is high.”

How the case comes out is clear in most jurisdictions. If B knew he was building on A’s property, the court will enjoin the trespass (i.e., order the house removed). If B was negligent about building on A’s property, the court might enjoin the trespass. And if B was not negligent — imagine that B ordered a survey but the surveyor got it wrong — then the court will not enjoin the trespass. (That might mean an award of damages, or perhaps an injunction requiring the defendant to convey another strip of land to the plaintiff.) This same kind of structured analysis can be applied in other cases.

This post is already long, so I won’t attempt a defense of the traditional structure of this doctrine. But it’s subtle and rational, and it has an important place in equity’s remedial arsenal. And it has a number of characteristic traits of equity: equity uses a wider-angle lens, considering the hardships on both parties (not traditionally done in damages analysis); equity is pervasively concerned with the conduct of the parties; and equity tailors its relief to the particular case (injunctions are not supposed to be “off the rack”). To borrow a point from David Schoenbrod, equitable balancing or undue hardship is not only about whether to give an injunction but also about how to draft the injunction.

How a court fashions equitable relief is shaped by the principle that “he who seeks equity must do equity.” With the balance of hardships, the court is looking not to whether the plaintiff has “done equity,” but to whether the defendant has. The traditional maxim is “he who seeks equity must do equity.” This doctrine adds a corollary: “he who seeks to avoid equity must do equity.”

(Two endnotes. First, I used the phrase “equitable relief” in this post. When using that term I don’t mean “non-monetary relief.” I actually mean “equitable relief,” including injunction, accounting, constructive trust, equitable lien, subrogation, equitable rescission and specific performance — but not including damages, habeas, mandamus, replevin, quasi-contract and legal rescission. For analysis, see my article “The System of Equitable Remedies.” Second, the leading treatment of the undue hardship defense is this recent article by Doug Laycock, and there is a valuable brief discussion here by Henry Smith.)

*I corrected a wrongly transposed A and B in one sentence. Thanks to reader “VC Junkie” for catching the mistake.

Estudio Yeyé, Copo, and Anagrama

Unplanned and serendipitously -- as I was in Monterrey earlier this week -- today's projects all come from Mexico, two of them from the northern parts with work by Chihuahua, Guadalajara, and Monterrey.

La luz del Día by Estudio Yeyé

La luz del Día is a new ice cream shop in Chihuahua with a colorful identity by local firm Estudio Yeyé. Circles, fragments of circles, and curves inside circles come together in charming illustrations to serve as the backgrounds for the packaging full of goodness. Not shown in the image above but available at the link is a nice extension of the system from the opaque ice cream pints to the transparent popsicle bags. The logo can sometimes take up too much space and block the illustration but, in the larger pints, it strikes the right balance. Bonus points for the paper shapes created for photographing the project. See full project

Perro by Copo

Perro is a small business dedicated to party and event decoration with a penchant for paper. The name does translate to "dog" in English but it's also Mexican slang for something that's "bitchin'". The slang is not typically associated with party decorations, more like a great, spicy taco or someone that slam dunks a lot. Anyway, the mash-up of dog and paper come together beautifully in a logo by local firm Copo that depicts a hairy dog as if it were made of paper strips and sets a chic, sophisticated tone for the company -- it wouldn't be the same if they had chose to depict a bulldog. The salmon and blue palette is quite nice and the snowflakes on the print materials are festive. The condensed serif used for not-sure-what-those-are looks great as it's trying to burst out of the paper. I wouldn't say this project "esta bien perro" but I would say it's "bonito". See full project

Fatlash by Anagrama

Fatlash is a London-based service, specializing in semi-permanent eyelash extensions and products. While beauty products tend to go for thin, slender logos, Monterrey, Mexico-based Anagrama has gone the opposite route with a chunky, fat wordmark that instead speaks to the volume-izing effect of the eyelashes. I'm not sure if it's a typeface out of the box or if they customized the "S" but it's a great point of distinction. In application, as usual, the logo placement and sizing along with the restrained color palette by Anagrama makes this project stand out vividly and boldly. See full project

Tianmen Soho City — un-Google-able — has taken the liberty of using Duffy + Partners' design for the Mall of America. This photo is courtesy of Ondrej Jób taken in the city of Zhangjiajie in the Hunan province on his recent trip to China. (No additional link to this story).

With so much things to talk about about viral topics over the Internet today, who would give some attention in revisiting American history? US-based artist Jason Heuser just did, in an epic way. His Presidents series of digital illustrations feature bad-ass portraits of US Presidents as heroes mostly in combat with beasts in fantasy realms and battlefields.

Jason’s re-imagined American history is a show of thanks to his seventh grade teacher, who helped him fall in love with the subject. He started the series last 2011 and became viral over the years which actually earned him a job as a game designer. Some of our favorites in his bad-ass series of portraits include the depiction of Bill Clinton’s love for guns, burgers and women, Ronald Reagan in a Velociraptor, FDR in a mech-transforming wheelchair suit and Teddy Roosevelt slaughtering bigfoot.

Scroll down below for more of Jason’s awesome presidential portraits plus Benjamin Franklin in battle with Zeus.

 

Bill Clinton the Lady Killer (Source)

Teddy Roosevelt VS. Bigfoot (Source)

FDR Battle Master (Source)

Richard Nixon fighting a Saber Tooth Tiger (Source)

Obama riding a Lion (Source)

George Washington The Original Master Chief (Source)

Ronald Reagan Riding a Velociraptor (Source)

John F. Kennedy Alien Hunter (Source)

Ben Franklin VS. Zeus (Source)

Thomas Jefferson VS. Gorilla (Source)

Andrew Jackson Alien Slayer (Source)

George Washington Zombie Hunter (Source)

Abe Lincoln Riding a Grizzly (Source)

Prints of these artworks are available in Jason’s Etsy shop. Check out more of his works in his DeviantART gallery.

 

---

 
Which of the portraits is your most favorite? Tell us your thoughts and suggestions by commenting below.

Find You The Designer on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and Google Plus for more updates.

Don’t forget to subscribe to our blog for the latest design inspirations, stories and freebies. Speaking of freebies, check out our free print templates page for your print design needs.

Stay awesome everyone!

Read more posts by Kerby Rosanes