| Willard v. Tayloe | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Full case name | Willard v. Tayloe |
| Citations | 75 U.S. 557 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Field, joined by Grier, Clifford, Swayne, Miller, Davis |
| Concurrence | Chase, Nelson |
Willard v. Tayloe, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 557 (1869), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that courts of equity deciding issues of contract have discretion to determine the form of relief based on the circumstances of each individual case. The Court established a new rule to determine the form of relief: Relief should serve the ends of justice, and should be withheld if it appears likely to produce hardship or injustice to either party.
In the case, the Court held that plaintiff Henry Willard had not acted in bad faith by tendering United States Notes as down payment for the sale of property, even though the contract in question specified payment in gold or silver coin. Nonetheless, the contract specified payment in coin, and payment in coin must be made. The Court also held that fluctuations in the price of the property between the date on which the contract was agreed and the date the down payment was made do not create issues of equity.