A challenge to the utility and distinctiveness of the good man theory of equity

Abstract

Abstract This article provides a critical analysis of the ‘good man’ theory of equity which suggests that equity requires defendants to act as good men by performing primary obligations rather than providing compensation for breach. It examines the practical consequences of applying the theory in the contexts of disgorgement of bribes obtained in breach of fiduciary duty and equitable compensation for breach of trust. It also critically analyses the theory’s foundations through the lenses of legal taxonomy and legal history and philosophy and makes the case for the theory’s abolition.