How do remedies at law differ from remedies in equity?

Answer

Remedies at law are generally paid in some amount of money whereas equitable remedies result in a court ordering one party to do (or not do) some action, e.g., an injunction.

Equitable remedies, unlike remedies at law, are granted at the sole discretion of a judge. A jury is not involved. Equitable awards also require that the person seeking equitable relief must have acted in good faith in the matter at hand (i.e., he who asks for equitable relief must come before the court "with clean hands").

Equitable remedies (I am excluding preliminary relief) are sought in those cases when money damages will not make a party "whole" in the eyes of the law, or where the other party has been unjustly enriched. Accordingly, it is not uncommon for courts to require the seller's performance of a contract to sell land to the petitioner if the seller has tried, unlawfully or unfairly, to back out of the deal. That is because, in the eyes of the law, land is unique: no amount of money will compensate for a seller's failure to sell a particular parcel of land he lawfully contracted to sell.

Sometimes equitable remedies are sought in cases where the strict imposition of the law would result in a great injustice to the person seeking equitable relief. The maxim that applies to this case is "Equity abhors a forfeiture."

The existence of equitable remedies is an acknowledgement by the legal system that even when a legal remedy exists, there are a few cases in which the legal remedy (adhering to the letter of the law) would produce an unjust result. These situations are relatively rare, but they do occur.