In Pari Delicto


Also found in: Legal, Wikipedia.

In Pari Delicto

In law, describing a situation in which a court rules that two parties to a dispute are equally at fault for the dispute. If a court rules in pari delicto, it refuses to involve itself in the dispute or to award damages or other money to one party or the other. This ruling amounts to a dismissal of a case. See also: Dirty hands.
References in periodicals archive ?
The District Court dismissed the civil RICO claims because the Republic of Iraq was barred by the common-law defense in pari delicto.
27) first addressed whether in pari delicto applied to antitrust cases.
However, a corporation may avoid imputation of its agent's wrongful acts, and the in pari delicto defense, wilh die "adverse interest exception.
In die last four years, live major court decisions have addressed die auditor's use of in pari delicto lo defend against liability.
The in pari delicto doctrine, together with agency law, allows the fraudulent actions of corporate management to be imputed to the corporation if the acts of the corporate agents were not totally adverse to the company and benefited the corporation in some way.
Arguments in favor of the in pari delicto defense for the auditing profession include, among others, that auditors should be permitted to use it just as other individuals and professionals have done in common law cases for over two centuries.
The defendants responded that a bankruptcy trustee stands in the shoes of the debtor and, thus, is subject to the in pari delicto defense, just as the debtor would have been in the absence of a bankruptcy.
The major changes with respect to assignability of tort claims in insolvency cases, and the prohibition of in pari delicto defenses as against an assignee for the benefit of creditors and his or her initial assignee (44) will no doubt be the subject of future litigation and more scholarly articles.
In pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis stands for the proposition that "in the case of equal fault, the position of the defendant is stronger.
When confronted with the in pari delicto defense, courts have utilized a two-part analysis.
Ampil invoked the in pari delicto defense and filed a counterclaim for damages, contending that Abacus violated the mandatory closeout rule under the RSA.
The high court ruled that the in pari delicto defense did not apply to the April 10 and 11, 1997 transactions because, at that time, there was no violation of the RSA by Abacus.