Also known as: unreasonable hardship · disproportionate hardship · undue hardship
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An equitable consideration that may lead a court to deny specific performance or an injunction when enforcement would cause unreasonable hardship or loss to the party in breach or to third persons.
After a warehouse fire, Vertex demanded coverage from Clear Risk. The next day adjuster Yuri prepared notes and reserve calculations. Vertex later sought those materials in discovery. Clear Risk showed that Vertex could obtain equivalent information through other means without undue hardship, so the court denied production.
White Events' in-house counsel interviewed lower-level staff about streaming protocols and prepared memos summarizing those interviews. View Screen sought the memos in discovery. White Events established that the employees acted at superiors' direction to obtain legal advice, and View Screen could not show substantial need without undue hardship, so the memos remained protected.
Aurora Appliances operated a factory that emitted noise and odors affecting Lina's nearby residence. Lina sued for nuisance. Aurora showed that stopping the emissions would require shutting down the plant at prohibitive cost. Because the harm could not be avoided without undue hardship, the court declined to enjoin the operations.
Eugene Shute purchased a cruise ticket containing a forum-selection clause requiring suit in Florida. After injury, Shute sued in Washington. Carnival Cruise Lines moved to enforce the clause. Shute argued enforcement would cause unreasonable hardship due to travel and cost, but the court upheld the clause because the burden did not rise to that level.
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., a Florida corporation, sold passage tickets for a seven-day cruise aboard its ship the Tropicale to Eulala and Russel Shute, who resided in Washington. The Shutes purchased the tickets through a travel agent in Arlington, Washington. The agent forwarded the payment to Carnival's headquarters in Miami, Florida. Carnival then prepared the tickets and mailed them to the Shutes in Washington. The face of each ticket directed passengers to read the terms and conditions on the last pages. Contract page 1 stated that acceptance of the ticket constituted agreement to all terms and conditions. This included a provision that all disputes arising under or in connection with the contract would be litigated, if at all, in a court located in the State of Florida to the exclusion of the courts of any other state or country. The Shutes boarded the Tropicale in Los Angeles, California. The ship sailed to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, and then returned to Los Angeles. While the vessel was in international waters off the Mexican coast, Eulala Shute slipped on a deck mat during a guided tour of the ship's galley and was injured. The Shutes filed a negligence suit against Carnival in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Carnival moved for summary judgment. It contended that the forum-selection clause required the suit to be brought in Florida or, alternatively, that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction because Carnival's contacts with Washington were insubstantial. The district court granted the motion on personal jurisdiction grounds. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. It first concluded that Carnival's solicitation of business in Washington established sufficient contacts for personal jurisdiction. It then held that the forum-selection clause was unenforceable because it was not freely bargained for and because the Shutes were physically and financially incapable of litigating in Florida. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseA court may refuse specific performance when enforcement would cause unreasonable hardship or loss to the breaching party or third persons. The analysis weighs the hardship against the benefit of enforcement and considers whether the relief is fair under the circumstances.
Courts refuse to enforce a noncompete if the restraint is broader than necessary or if the resulting hardship to the restrained party and likely injury to the public outweigh the employer's legitimate interests. The test examines scope, duration, geography, and the balance of burdens.
A party seeking discovery of work product must demonstrate substantial need for the materials and that the substantial equivalent cannot be obtained without undue hardship. Mental impressions of counsel receive additional protection even when factual work product is ordered produced.
…although the forum clause does not directly prevent the determination of claims against the cruise line, it causes plaintiffs unreasonable hardship in asserting their rights and therefore violates Congress’ intended goal in enacting § 183c. Significantly, however, respondents cite no authority for their contention that Congress’ intent…