is it just literally “taking too long to do something?”
In: Other
Pretty much. This defense is for when there has been way too long since the incident, and evidence and witnesses are no longer easily available. It’s meant to people from stalling before they sue you to get a better case in court.
It’s a bit more fuzzy than that. “taking too long” would more be the statute of limitations. “You took too long to bring this lawsuit” is a statute of limitations defense. Laches is more subtle. It deals with ideas of equity and fairness in the judicial process. It basically means you can be barred from bringing a lawsuit if you *intentionally delayed* bringing that lawsuit to the specific detriment of the person you’re suing.
Let’s predate the statute of limitations on breach of contract is 5 years. Let’s also say that you. I dunno. Are a toaster manufacturer. And as part of your toaster manufacturing business you contract me, a screw maker, to provide you screws.
And as part of our contract we have a specific laid out expectation on exactly the type of screw I’m making for you. Their length, shape, alloy composition. Our contract very very explicitly defines the exact details of the screws.
And in my first batch of screws to you…they’re a little off. Maybe they’re too long or short or the wrong metallic composition. But you say nothing. You keep paying me. You keep buying screws from me that are *very slightly* outside of spec.
Years go by. And on 4 years and 364 days you sue me for breach of contract stating that you want all your money back, for nearly 5 years of screw purchases, because I’ve been in breach this whole time.
We’re still within the statute of limitations. That’s 5 years and you made it by a day. But I have a pretty damn solid laches defense. Because *you knew this whole time*. You *knew I was in breach* and you said *nothing*. You let me keep doing this for *five years* just so *you* could get a bigger payout. The time for you to have said something was the first batch 5 years ago. That was the time you should have done something about it. It would be unethical for the court to allow you to proceed because you *intentionally* waited 5 years just so you’d have a bigger benefit and I’d have a bigger penalty. You knew about it. you waited. That was tacit acceptance.
It’s taking an *unreasonably* long time to assert rights or other legal claim. There is also a need to show that the delay was to the benefit of the one accused of Laches.
From Wikipedia :
A claim of laches requires the following components:
1. a delay in bringing the action
2. a delay that is unreasonable and
3. that prejudices the defendant.
Laches came up quite a bit during the 2020 election. In a number of lawsuits, plaintiffs were complaining that certain voting methods were illegal or unconstitutional, but they waited until after early voting had started (or even after the election) to sue. By that time, people had already cast their votes, and courts were not going to create a larger injustice (throwing out votes) to resolve a smaller problem (illegal method of voting) – not when the smaller problem could have been solved months ago.
Think more “you waited so long to do this thing that there is now a concern you’re doing the thing now for an improper purpose that is actually higher than the concern about the harm you might suffer if this thing doesn’t happen”.
I won’t repeat what many others have said, but I’ll add that laches is what’s called an “equitable defense.” The history is that sometimes the law is unfair, so certain courts in common-law England were able to impose “equitable remedies” to make things fairer. Today, in the US, we’ve generally merged courts of law and equity, but retain some differences. (A notable exception is Delaware’s famous Chancery Court, which hears a lot of business law cases—without a jury, because historically courts of equity lacked juries.)
Nowadays, we still distinguish legal remedies (money damages) from equitable remedies (injunctions—that is, an order to DO or NOT DO something in the future, not just paying for something already done). Some cases can have both: Pay for what you did, and don’t do it again.
Some courts will say equitable defenses can only apply to equitable remedies, so you couldn’t block a damages suit with laches. But many courts aren’t so strict about that. But everyone agrees equity is primarily concerned with fairness, so if the defendant has “unclean hands,” they might not be able to successfully assert an equitable defense. For example, if you have done something intentionally and in bad faith, but the person you harmed is a bit slow in suing you for it, the court might be unwilling to use laches to protect you because you acted inequitably.
Some courts will also say that a statute of limitations precludes a defense of laches, because the legislature told us the time limit by law, so we don’t have to figure out what seems fair after the fact. I believe the Supreme Court reached this conclusion on patent law recently. But many equitable remedies don’t have a statute of limitations because they’re forward looking anyway.
The term comes from the french word that means “to let go” or “to release”. It means that by delaying action to make a claim to recover and redress, you have given up on your claim. This could be by delaying too long. You would be excluded from your claim even more decisively if the other side can show you were aware of you needed to pursue the claim but failed to do so. It’s a little bit like a civil suit equivalent to a statute of limitations in criminal law. It’s a principle in law where things need to be acted on in a reasonably timed manner so as to avoid an indefinite open ended opportunity to pursue an ancient claim which could clog the courts with old claims. Justice wants things to happen in a timely manner and parties need to act responsibly in that context.
Latest Answers