Maxims Originally Quoted Down In Latin - Doctrine Of Unclean Hands

Discuss About The Maxims Were Originally Quoted Down In Latin?

Doctrine of unclean hands is a Maxims. Maxims were originally quoted down in Latin. They are not any written down law, they are general rules that have been enforced by the law as a general rule and has continued to run down through generations amongst judges. [1]The exact words of the maxim may vary from court to court but the real meaning will always remain the same.

Maxim of equity are general rules that are governs in the way the court of equity operates. They explain the nature of the remedies in relation to the common law as a more easy way to fulfil the needs of the people to decide the parties conduct and how worthy are they.

As mentioned in the doctrine of unclean hands it says that one who comes to equity must come with clean hands. [2]The purpose of the doctrine is to protect the integrity of the court. It says that the court will not help those who have done wrong themselves. Any one who seeks justice in court of law should be free from illegal or unethical conduct. [3]If the problem for which the person seeks aid from the court has created the problem by their own, in that case the court will not help. The courts will not a help anyone who itself is guilty of any improper conduct. The integrity of the court is protected through this maxim. The court will not aid anyone who has done something illegal or has started the problem that he or she has started. This illegal or bad conduct may be direct or indirect in nature, in both the cases the person will be considered liable.

Mr. A hired Mr. B as his agent to sell his products that he manufactures. Now during the time of selling Mr. B promised his customers something which is not real in nature. [4]Mr A was aware about the situation, still keeps silent. After a while some dispute arose on that particular sale with that particular customer.

In this situation though Mr A himself kept silent about the situation and is directly not liable but he was aware about the situation and the agent was hired by him so in that case he himself was liable and faulty and will not get any aid from the court as he himself is not clean.

Doctrine of Unclean Hands

The court will not grant relief [5]in case where both the parties have tried to dodge the law or have done anything which is illegal in nature or is considered to be a bad act.

Under the doctrine of unclean hands the defendant may question that the plaintiff is not in liberty to get a[6] relief as they have them themselves done something wrong in relation to the case in particular that the plaintiff has filed for and he should not be entitled to get any kind of remedy or aid in relation to that particular case. But there should be ample proof that the plaintiff has done some misconduct in relation to that particular case and its intention is not proper.

This type of doctrine is only[7] available in relief which is only in form of equity. The doctrine of unclean hands are not available in cases resulting in legal damages that is to be exact it is not available in the cases which is in relation to monetary awards. In case of such a doctrine it is kind of a positive defence in nature. In the case of doctrine of unclean hands relies fully on the defendant. This means that the defendant has to put up the allegation upon the plaintiff and it is upon the defendant to come up with the proof and evidence that can prove such an allegation. So we can say that the doctrine of unclean hand totally depends on the discretion of the defendant. In such a doctrine the allegations at first has to be put forward by the defendant Accounting also has to be proved by the defendant.

There are some specific contracts where[8] the doctrine of unclean hands can be put up by the defendant. It can be performed in case of equitable form of relief.

The types of contract claims where the doctrine of unclean hands can be put up:

This is a type of contract which is specific in nature where both the parties have gone into contract [9]have mentioned all the details about how carry out the contract. This type contract may include delivering of a consignment.

In this type of contract it cancels the old[10] contract and forms a new one. In this type of contract the doctrine of unclean hands may prevail.

If the contract is redefined or rewritten to make changes in order to rectify the previous mistakes, in that case the doctrine of [11]unclean hands may prevail.

Examples of Doctrine of Unclean Hands

In case of a contract mentioned if the plaintiff request the court of law to provide relief under the above mentioned reforms in that case the defendant may claim for doctrine of unclean hands. The doctrine of unclean hands is available for bother the defendant and the plaintiff in case of contract. [12]As the plaintiff may claim that the defendant has performed something wrong and is not entitle to get an aid from the court of law.

To prove the requirement of [13]unclean hands may vary from cases it is not required that both the plaintiff and the defendant has performed same kind of misconduct. It may so happen that the plaintiff has performed misconduct and the defendant was silent that time consciously knowing due to some personal interest, in that case the defendant is equally liable for the misconduct. Knowingly staying silent due to some personal interest is assumed that the person is also performed the same misconduct and such a situation both of them the defendant and the plaintiff will not get any aid from the court of law.

The doctrine of unclean hands has nothing to do with the general moral character of the person. [14]If the person’s moral character is not good, that won’t be enough to prove that the person is performed and misconduct and doctrine of unclean hands can be levied upon him.

In some case where the plaintiff has committed a bad conduct in that case the defendant may claim doctrine of[15] unclean hands. The doctrine of unclean hands may prevail under some situation the person that is it may be the defendant or the plaintiff has failed to honour the contract agreement. In that case the doctrine may prevail. If the plaintiff has acted dishonestly or has fraudulently this against the nature of the contract, in that case the doctrine of unclean hands may prevail. If the plaintiff has performed a crime that is in relation with the contract, in that case the doctrine of unclean hands will prevail. If the plaintiff has forced the person to go into contract with him and late comes to [16]court for aid against that person for that same contract, in that case the defendant may claim for doctrine of unclean hands. In case the contract that the plaintiff has gone into has been achieved with violence or committing any fraud, in that case the doctrine of unclean hands could be claimed from the side of the defendant.

Contract Claims covered by Doctrine of Unclean Hands

In the case that John Evert vs. Joseph Williams, were both highway robbers, who entered into a partnership where they robbed highway travellers and split the loot of their robberies. After the looted things were sold and divided, [17]Evert thought that he did not get the fair share of the looted amount and took Williams to the court. As the court came to know about the act of both the parties that the disputed amount that they were talking about was actually an amount of loot. The court dismissed the case and issued warrant against both the parties declaring them guilty.

As the case tells us that in this situation where both the parties are guilty of starting the problem that they want to resolve in court, they will not get any aid from the side of the court. [18]So in order to get any aid or resolution one needs to be free from any wrongful act.

As when a defendant appeals for the doctrine of “clean hands” to cancel the charges that have been brought upon him then the [19]court will see if the plaintiff has performed any misconduct or not and if he has then it needs to be found whether the misconduct is in relation to controversy for which the plaintiff has appealed for. 

The court will see if the Plaintiff is engaged in a fraudulent or illegal misconduct more or less in relation to the case or he has performed any misconduct at the end and ants that[20] status quo should be resolved back to the previous situation. If the desired relief and harm the interest of other in that case it can be denied by the court.

The doctrine says that justice is not served by doing any harm to the third party. So if ever there is a situation[21] that by any decision if taken by the court can harm someone in that case the decision will not stand in the court of law.

The difficult problem in the court of law is that when a contract between parties become unenforceable due because of the relation of the particular contract to the crime, in that case the decision is very satisfactory as court will not aid a trade which may cause fraud to the public. [22]The doctrine says that if a company that seeks legal aid for any trade misconduct that it has faced and the company itself has committed any crime against the public or third party in that case the court will not be able to provide any aid to the parties who are seeking for the aid.

Requirement to Prove Unclean Hands

An extensive rule that may effect is to some point will restrict people from illegal work. But this will happen when such prevention is demanded by the public for their welfare, in that case as according to the above mentioned example where one person demands the looted amount. [23]The plaintiff in that case was denied of any legal aid due to the illegal act that he has performed in the past that has a relation to the subject matter of the particular case. So it tells that in a situation such as this where the court will not be able to perform full justice, in that case should restrain from doing any justice at all.

The court has further mentioned that the party to the contract which is illegally executed may withdraw from such contract for the benefits conferred. [24]To this rule there is an exception in case of the law in relation to the quasi contract which in effect understands the ultimate policy in relation, to possible prevention to a crime which is very serious in nature.

This case involves an aged couple who moved in a house with a boy and his family

In this case that was filed by the parents of the defendant[25] who was the female and the wife. They entered in a deal where they mentioned that the defendant who was the husband will arrange a mortgage to finance a house where they will live together. The house that is mentioned over here is to be bought in Okanagan with the mortgage of the defendant who is the husband in this case.  In this case the plaintiff and defendant both lived together in the same house which was financed by the defendant. The mortgage was produced by the defendant. As the defendant arranged the mortgage of for buying the house both the parties came into a contract where they had a mutual agreement that the mortgage will be provided by the defendant and rest all expenses will be beard by the plaintiff.[26] It so happened where the defendant arranged the mortgage and the plaintiff did the bid for the house. From buying the house, paying taxes, maintenance etc all were maintained by the plaintiff. The defendant did not pay any expenses regarding the house. As the mortgage was in the name of the defendant so the house was in the name of the defendant, whereas they went into a contract mentioning a lease management between them for a period of 60 months or we can say 5 years. Apart form this lease agreement the plaintiff had no documents in support to the house. Apart from this the plaintiff carried out all the expenses in relation to the house. The rent agreement that they went into was of the same amount of that of the amount of the mortgage that is paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, moreover the plaintiff also paid the insurance and tax of the house. So by this we can understand that the defendant did not pay any amount in regard to the house and also the rent amount within these five years matches the amount of the mortgage so in real no amount for the property was paid by the defendant. After the completion of the five years or 60 months agreement the relation between them broke and as the ownership of the house belong in the name of the defendant so there was no document that can support the ownership of the house.

Relation of Unclean Hands to Moral Character

The plaintiff filed a case in the court stating that the house in real sense belongs to them as they have paid all the expenses in relation to the house. [27]On the other hand the defendant claims that the intention of the plaintiff was wrong and their hands were not clean as according to the doctrine of unclean hands

The court thought otherwise, it came to a conclusion that the plaintiff made all the expenses in relation to the house from insurance, maintenance, building etc. every cost except the mortgage which was also paid as a rent in those five years. The court found that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant was not exact landlord tenant relationship. [28]They both have equal interest upon the house and the ownership was named after the defendant in order to acquire more mortgage amount as they were not wealthy enough.

So in this case the defendant could not prove that there was any wrong intention on the part of the plaintiff and[29] that the doctrine of unclean hands should prevail. So in that case the court mentioned that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the house.

With the introduction of Judicature Act 1873 a new era in the court of justice prevailed. Before the introduction of judicature act there were cases where common law and equity had different rules that gave rise to issues and confusion in the mind of the people and the remedies that were being given were also had inconsistency.[30] In that case the rule of equity will succeed with award of common order.

Before the act Judicature, the common law and law of equity had rules which were different from each other and that might give rise to conflicting remedies. In cases like that the rule of equity succeeds by granting common order. Prior to the Act of Judicature there used to be different rules that existed for the same subject in matter to the different court of law.[31] The cases that are of same nature that came up on different court of law were treated differently as there was no exact rule that was mentioned for a particular case. The judges of different court saw those cases from view point and different angles and came up with different remedies which did not used to match with each other. So this problem existed and there were lawyers who used change the subject of the case and presented the case in such a way which use to make the judges deal the cases indifferently. There was problem that existed which came to an end after the introduction of Judicature Act in the year 1873. After enactment of this act there was a set of fixed rules that was mentioned so that it prevails on every court of law so that there was no confusion in dealing the cases and the remedies are common in nature. This act helped to eliminate the confusion and problem discrimination that people were not very happy about.

Famous Case Involving Unclean Hands

There were situation in some cases where it used to happen that common law and law of equity came in to collision. In some cases the legal rule conflicting with the law of equity was a great problem that was a common in days the enactment of the Judicature Act and at that moment it was practiced that in such occasion the law of equity will succeed the legal aid. With the introduction of judicature Act there was no such space left for confusion of any kind as there was only one law that existed. This was a great revolutionary act which dismissed all confusion in existence and made it very easy for the court to work.

There were times when the remedy that was sometime was available done not used to match for common law or rules of equity. So there was confusion that used caused a problem. For example for break of contract there was no remedy under the rules of equity whereas on the other hand the common law would offer damages for such an act. So we can see how both the laws used to be in contradicting to each other. Where common law offers damages for breach of contract on the other hand the law of equity does not have and such remedy. So there was a confusion that prevail all the time and there was no fixed remedy and this confusion so big great that there was a huge problem as people had not full believe on the court of justice and was not happy with the remedies that were being offered. This problem came to an end with the enforcement of Judicature Act 1873.

Conclusion

The existence of common law and equity had a confliction between them as both the law were different from each other. Bothe the system had lot if indifference amongst them which brought them into conflict with each other.

With the enactment of the Judicature Act in the year1873, there were many controversies that arose that whether this law has merged the common law and equity or is it an amalgamation of both the laws. It was understood that act of judicature is a one single law that came into existence under a single tribunal which shows that the rules of the two separate court act as one

It is very important that those who preach the union of equity and law was unsuccessful to offer more explanations to support their stand and have closed their eyes on the opinion of those who stand on the fusion of only the administration of the systems. [32] Lord Millet mentioned that Judicature Act, had great influence of combing both law and equity in such a way that they both have got merged together to become a single law or single body from two separate body. This fusion has helped greatly as they both have become a single body rather than becoming two different body of law.  This has expelled the situation of confusion amongst different court and brought an understanding and harmony between the courts which will help them to work in harmony expelling all kinds of confusion and problems.

Conclusion

The Judicature Act is not a fusion of the common law and law of equity. They both exist and their rules still exist. The Judicature act did not change the substantial rule as they are merged to become one so that they can eliminate confusion difference in views and remedies. With the introduction of Judicature Act, it brought a new revolution, as there was not confusion that prevailed and people were happy with the remedies as they were common in nature unlike the Common law and equity law.

References:

Akpotor, Sunny. "Corruption: The civil society and government." Philosophy and Politics: Discource on Values, Politics, and Power in Africa (2015): 319.

Alba, Mariano de. "Drawing the line: addressing allegations of unclean hands in investment arbitration." Braz. J. Int'l L. 12 (2015): 322.

Alsup, Judge William, Matthew Schruers, and Jonathan Band. "In the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit." (2017).

Bakshi, P. M. "09_Pleadings: Role and Significance.management" (2016).

Brainard, Daniel. "The Remains of Laches in Copyright Infringement Cases: Implications of Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer." J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 14 (2014): i.

Bray, Samuel L. "On Doctrines That Do Many Things." Browser Download This Paper (2015).

Carter, J. W., Wayne Courtney, and Gregory Tolhurst. "AN ASSIMILATED APPROACH TO DISCHARGE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BY DELAY." The Cambridge Law Journal 76.1 (2017): 63-86.

Dumberry, Patrick, and Gabrielle Dumas-Aubin. "The Doctrine of’ Clean Hands' and the Inadmissibility of Claims by Investors Breaching International Human Rights Law." (2014).

Dumberry, Patrick. "State of Confusion: The Doctrine of ‘Clean Hands’ in Investment Arbitration after the Yukos Award." The Journal of World Investment & Trade 17.2 (2016): 229-259.

Education, Law, and Trade Magazines. "Lurie v. Wolin Case No. 1-13-0661, 2014 WL 1311977 (Ill. App. 1 Dist., March 31, 2014)." Gaming Law Review and Economics 18.5 (2014): 490-493.

Feldman, Yuval, and Henry E. Smith. "Behavioural equity." Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE 170.1 (2014): 137-159.

Ghahramani, Salar. "Professors as Corporate Fiduciaries: Implications for Law, Organizational Ethics, and Public Policy." Va. L. & Bus. Rev. 10 (2015): 237.

Hardy, Stephen. "Towards a Judicature Act, 2015." Amicus Curiae 2014.99 (2016): 4-9.

Harris, B. E. "Should insurance risk avoidance be reformed and would reform be of a right of equitable rescission or a right sui generis?" Journal of Business Law 1 (2013): 23-38.

Law, Mark. "‘He who comes to Equity need not do so with clean hands?’ illegality and resulting trusts after Patel v Mirza, what should the approach be?" Trusts & Trustees (2017).

Lemley, Mark. "The Economic Irrationality of the Patent Misuse Doctrine." (2016).

Levine, David S. "School Boy's Tricks: Reasonable Cybersecurity and the Panic of Law Creation." (2015).

Llamzon, Aloysius. "Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v The Russian Federation 1: The State of the ‘Unclean Hands’ Doctrine in International Investment Law: Yukos as both Omega and Alpha." ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal 30.2 (2015): 315-325.

Llamzon, Aloysius. "Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v The Russian Federation 1: The State of the ‘Unclean Hands’ Doctrine in International Investment Law: Yukos as both Omega and Alpha." ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal 30.2 (2015): 315-325.

Mare, Steven. "He Who Comes into Court Must Not Come with Green Hands: The Marijuana Industry's Ongoing Struggle with the Illegality and Unclean Hands Doctrines." Hofstra L. Rev. 44 (2015): 1351.

Obeng-Odoom, Franklin. "Urban land policies in Ghana: A case of the emperor’s new clothes?" The Review of Black Political Economy 41.2 (2014): 119-143.

O'Connell, Anne-Marie. "Justice and the defence of rights in England and Wales: the case of Equity." Miroirs: Revue des civilisations anglophone, ibérique ET ibéro-américaine 3/2016 (2016): 50-65.

Okoro, Chiedozie. "Thought and Discipline: Orienting Engineering towards and Eco-friendly Philosophy." (2014).

Petherbridge, Lee, Jason Rantanen, and R. Polk Wagner. "Unenforceability." Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 70 (2013): 1751.

Rendleman, Doug. "The Triumph of Equity Revisited: The Stages of Equitable Discretion." (2015).

Rogan, J., and Athanasian Creed. "This list contains only those sources found particularly helpful. It does not include mention of newspapers, periodicals, novels, or the various official and semi-official law reports. The place of a book’s publication is given only when not London." The Victorian Church in Decline: Archbishop Tait and the Church of England 1868-1882(2016): 328.

Russell, David, and Toby Graham. " Clayton v Clayton in the New Zealand Supreme Court: it’s hard to keep a good court down." Trusts & Trustees22.10 (2016): 1046-1048.

Russell, David, and Toby Graham. "G Clayton v Clayton in the New Zealand Supreme Court: it’s hard to keep a good court down." Trusts & Trustees22.10 (2016): 1046-1048.

Sherwin, Emily L. "Equity and the Modern Mind." Browser Download This Paper (2016).

Smith, Henry E. "Property as Platform: Coordinating Standards for Technological Innovation." Journal of Competition Law and Economics 9.4 (2013): 1057-1089.

Yasar, Mehmet Fatih, Abdurrahim Emhan, and Pauline Ebere. "Analysis of Organizational Justice, Supervisor Support, and Organizational Commitment: A Case Study of Energy Sector in Nigeria." Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 5.3 (2014):

Zhang, Weijun, and Yanbing Li. "Content Review and Copyright Protection in China after the 2009 US v. China WTO Panel Ruling." J. Copyright Soc'y USA 62 (2014): 437

[1] Akpotor, Sunny. "Corruption: The civil society and government." psychology and Politics: Discource on Values, Politics, and Power in Africa (2015): 319.

[2] Alba, Mariano de. "Drawing the line: addressing allegations of unclean hands in investment arbitration." Braz. J. Int'l L. 12 (2015): 322.

[3] Alsup, Judge William, Matthew Schruers, and Jonathan Band. "In the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit." (2017).

[4] Bakshi, P. M. "09_Pleadings: Role and Significance." (2016).

[5] Brainard, Daniel. "The Remains of Laches in Copyright Infringement Cases: Implications of Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer." J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 14 (2014): i.

[6] Bray, Samuel L. "On Doctrines That Do Many Things." Browser Download This Paper (2015).

[7] Carter, J. W., Wayne Courtney, and Gregory Tolhurst. "AN ASSIMILATED APPROACH TO DISCHARGE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BY DELAY." The Cambridge Law Journal 76.1 (2017): 63-86.

[8] Dumberry, Patrick, and Gabrielle Dumas-Aubin. "The Doctrine of’ Clean Hands' and the Inadmissibility of Claims by Investors Breaching International Human Rights Law." (2014).

[9] Dumberry, Patrick. "State of Confusion: The Doctrine of ‘Clean Hands’ in Investment Arbitration after the Yukos Award." The Journal of World Investment & Trde 17.2 (2016): 229-259.

[10] Education, Law, and Trade Magazines. "Lurie v. Wolin Case No. 1-13-0661, 2014 WL 1311977 (Ill. App. 1 Dist., March 31, 2014)." Gaming Law Review and Economics 18.5 (2014): 490-493.

[11] Feldman, Yuval, and Henry E. Smith. "Behavioural equity." Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE 170.1 (2014): 137-159.

[12] Ghahramani, Salar. "Professors as Corporate Fiduciaries: Implications for Law, Organizational Ethics, and Public Policy." Va. L. & Bus. Rev. 10 (2015): 237.

[13] Hardy, Stephen. "Towards a Judicature Act, 2015." Amicus Curiae 2014.99 (2016): 4-9.

[14] Harris, B. E. "Should insurance risk avoidance be reformed and would reform be of a right of equitable rescission or a right sui generis?" Journal of Business Law 1 (2013): 23-38.

[15]  Law, Mark. "‘He who comes to Equity need not do so with clean hands?’ illegality and resulting trusts after Patel v Mirza, what should the approach be?" Trusts & Trustees (2017)

[16]  Lemley, Mark. "The Economic Irrationality of the Patent Misuse Doctrine." (2016).

[17] Levine, David S. "School Boy's Tricks: Reasonable Cybersecurity and the Panic of Law Creation." (2015).

[18] Llamzon, Aloysius. "Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v The Russian Federation 1: The State of the ‘Unclean Hands’ Doctrine in International Investment Law: Yukos as both Omega and Alpha." ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal 30.2 (2015): 315-325.

[19] Llamzon, Aloysius. "Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v The Russian Federation 1: The State of the ‘Unclean Hands’ Doctrine in International Investment Law: Yukos as both Omega and Alpha." ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal 30.2 (2015): 315-325.

[20] 20 Mare, Steven. "He Who Comes into Court Must Not Come with Green Hands: The Marijuana Industry's Ongoing Struggle with the Illegality and Unclean Hands Doctrines." Hofstra L. Rev. 44 (2015): 1351.

[21] Obeng-Odoom, Franklin. "Urban land policies in Ghana: A case of the emperor’s new clothes?" The Review of Black Political Economy 41.2 (2014): 119-143.

[22] O'Connell, Anne-Marie. "Justice and the defence of rights in England and Wales: the case of Equity." Miroirs: Revue des civilisations anglophone, ibérique ET ibéro-américaine 3/2016 (2016): 50-65.

[23] 23 Okoro, Chiedozie. "Thought and Discipline: Orienting Engineering towards and Eco-friendly Philosophy." (2014).

[24] Petherbridge, Lee, Jason Rantanen, and R. Polk Wagner. "Unenforceability." Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 70 (2013): 1751.

[25] Rendleman, Doug. "The Triumph of Equity Revisited: The Stages of Equitable Discretion." (2015).

[26] Rogan, J., and Athanasian Creed. "This list contains only those sources found particularly helpful. It does not include mention of newspapers, periodicals, novels, or the various official and semi-official law reports. The place of a book’s publication is given only when not London." The Victorian Church in Decline: Archbishop Tait and the Church of England 1868-1882(2016): 328.

[27] Russell, David, and Toby Graham. " Clayton v Clayton in the New Zealand Supreme Court: it’s hard to keep a good court down." Trusts & Trustees22.10 (2016): 1046-1048.

[28] Russell, David, and Toby Graham. "G Clayton v Clayton in the New Zealand Supreme Court: it’s hard to keep a good court down." Trusts & Trustees22.10 (2016): 1046-1048.

[29] Sherwin, Emily L. "Equity and the Modern Mind." Browser Download This Paper (2016).

[30] Smith, Henry E. "Property as Platform: Coordinating Standards for Technological Innovation." Journal of Competition Law and Economics 9.4 (2013): 1057-1089.

Study of Energy Sector in Nigeria." Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 5.3 (2014):.

[31] Yasar, Mehmet Fatih, Abdurrahim Emhan, and Pauline Ebere. "Analysis of Organizational Justice, Supervisor Support, and Organizational Commitment: A Case

[32] Zhang, Weijun, and Yanbing Li. "Content Review and Copyright Protection in China after the 2009 US v. China WTO Panel Ruling." J. Copyright Soc'y USA 62 (2014): 437.