Also known as: relatively adequate
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A factor considered in determining the appropriateness of injunctive relief against a tort. It requires a court to compare how well an injunction would protect the plaintiff's interest against how well other remedies such as damages would do so.
Nimbus, a small app startup, alleges that Titan Platforms is repeatedly scraping its interface and diverting users in a way that erodes its market position and brand reputation. Nimbus seeks a permanent injunction. The court compares whether an order stopping the scraping would protect Nimbus's competitive interest more effectively than a damages award that might prove speculative or incomplete.
Summit Physicians Group claims that Valley Regional Hospital's misleading referral practices are causing ongoing loss of patients and professional goodwill. Summit requests a permanent injunction. The court weighs whether an injunction halting the referrals would safeguard Summit's relationships more completely than a monetary award that cannot readily restore the diverted patient base.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The Gazette alleges that CityBuzz's automated reposting of its paywalled articles causes continuing subscriber loss and brand dilution that would be difficult to measure or recover through damages. The Gazette moves for a preliminary injunction. The court assesses whether an order barring the reposting would address the harm more fully than damages that might serve only declaratory or punitive functions.
A court compares the practical effectiveness of an injunction with that of damages or other remedies. When damages cannot fully compensate ongoing or hard-to-quantify harm such as loss of goodwill or competitive position, the relative inadequacy of damages supports granting injunctive relief.
Supporting sources
No. A plaintiff may request injunctive relief directly. The court evaluates the comparative adequacy of remedies on the existing record rather than requiring the plaintiff to pursue and fail at a damages action first.
Supporting sources
The court conducts a comparative appraisal that also includes the nature of the interest to be protected, any delay or misconduct by the plaintiff, relative hardship to the parties, interests of third persons and the public, and the practicability of framing and enforcing an order.
Supporting sources