ELECTION OF RIGHTS OR REMEDIES

2 definitions found across Law Mind sources

← Dictionary
ELECTION OF RIGHTS OR REMEDIESAuthored
The Law Mind • 1328 words
Definition
Election of rights or remedies is the doctrine requiring a party, when two or more legally available but inconsistent rights or remedies exist arising from the same set of facts, to choose one and forgo the others. The election, once made knowingly and with awareness of the alternatives, is generally binding — the choosing party cannot later abandon the selected course and pursue what was given up. The doctrine operates in two related but distinct senses: 1. ELECTION OF REMEDIES: Where a single wrong gives rise to multiple potential legal remedies that are logically inconsistent with one another — such as affirming a voidable contract and suing for damages versus rescinding the contract and seeking restitution — a party who pursues one remedy to a meaningful degree may be held to have elected it, foreclosing the other. 2. ELECTION OF RIGHTS: Where a party holds two inconsistent legal positions or entitlements simultaneously and must choose which to assert — as when an instrument or estate plan confers a benefit upon a person but also purports to take away something already belonging to that person — the party must elect whether to accept the benefit (and relinquish the prior right) or reject the benefit (and retain the prior right). This arises most classically in equity, particularly in wills and trusts, where a testator purports to give a beneficiary property the testator did not own while also giving that beneficiary other benefits from the estate. Both senses rest on the same foundational principle: a person cannot approbate and reprobate — accepting the favorable parts of an instrument or transaction while rejecting the unfavorable. ---
Common Confusion
Election of remedies is frequently confused with waiver and with estoppel, but each operates differently. Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right, and it focuses on abandonment of a single right. Estoppel operates when a party is prevented from asserting a position because another party detrimentally relied on prior conduct. Election of remedies requires the existence of inconsistent alternatives and a meaningful choice between them — reliance by the opposing party is not always required, though many modern courts import a reliance or prejudice requirement before holding an election conclusive. Researchers working in older sources should not assume these doctrines are interchangeable. ---
Core Elements
For the election to be binding, courts generally examine: 1. EXISTENCE OF INCONSISTENT REMEDIES OR RIGHTS: The two courses of action must be genuinely inconsistent — not merely cumulative. If both could coexist without logical contradiction, there is no election required. 2. KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALTERNATIVES: The electing party must have had actual or constructive knowledge of the available options at the time of the purported election. 3. A DEFINITIVE ACT OF CHOICE: Something more than mere indecision or initial steps is typically required, though how far a party must proceed before the election becomes binding varies significantly by jurisdiction and era. 4. (IN EQUITY) BENEFIT RECEIVED OR CLAIMED: In the equitable election context — particularly under wills — the party must have received or be claiming a benefit under the instrument before the obligation to elect arises. ---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES EQUITABLE ELECTION (ELECTION UNDER A WILL OR INSTRUMENT): The classical equity doctrine requiring a beneficiary who receives a benefit under a will or deed to choose between accepting that benefit and surrendering a conflicting right, or rejecting the benefit and retaining the right. If the beneficiary accepts the benefit without electing, equity may impose a constructive obligation to compensate the disappointed party from the accepted benefit. ELECTION BETWEEN INCONSISTENT CONTRACT REMEDIES: Where breach of contract allows a party to either treat the contract as rescinded or affirmed, pursuing one path (e.g., accepting the contract as ongoing and suing for damages) may bar the other (e.g., later attempting to rescind). STATUTORY ELECTION: Some statutory schemes expressly require a party to elect between statutory and common-law remedies, or between two statutory tracks. Workers' compensation systems and admiralty claims (notably under the Jones Act) are recurring contexts. ---
Why It Matters in Research
The single most important navigational point: the election of remedies doctrine has been substantially eroded in modern American procedural law. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — and most state counterparts — permit pleading in the alternative, allowing parties to assert inconsistent claims simultaneously without making a binding election until judgment. Researchers using pre-twentieth-century sources, or sources from jurisdictions that have not adopted permissive pleading rules, will encounter a far more rigid doctrine than modern practice reflects. Do not assume a historical treatise's account of when election becomes binding applies under modern federal or state procedure. In equity — particularly the testamentary and trust context — the doctrine retains greater force and closer resemblance to its historical form. Bouvier's extended treatment of election under instruments (including the question of whether a married woman could elect, and under what conditions) reflects the nineteenth-century complexity of the doctrine where property rights intersected with coverture. That specific dimension is now obsolete, but the underlying equitable election doctrine for wills and trusts remains active law. Admiralty researchers should pay particular attention: the Jones Act and general maritime law create a statutory election context with its own rules governing when a seaman has made a binding choice between remedies. This is a live research issue, not merely a historical one. The word "election" also appears in constitutional and political law contexts (voting, political office) that are entirely unrelated. When searching corpus sources, narrow searches carefully to avoid noise from those unrelated uses. ---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's treatment of election — though the surviving extract in the source material focuses on the narrow question of whether a married woman could elect under an instrument — reflects the doctrine's primary home in nineteenth-century equity practice: the administration of wills and trusts, and the problem of a testator purporting to dispose of property belonging to another. The citations Bouvier marshals (including Kay & Johnson, Mylne & Craig, and House of Lords authorities) confirm that English equity courts had by the mid-nineteenth century developed a sophisticated but contested doctrine, particularly on the question of capacity to elect. The disagreement between Lord Hatherly and other judicial opinion on whether a married woman must elect illustrates how the doctrine's application was not settled even within its core domain. What Bouvier does not address — and what researchers should supplement from other sources — is the parallel common-law track of election of remedies in contract and tort, which developed with greater intensity in American courts during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries before being substantially displaced by modern procedural rules. ---
Jurisdictional Note
Modern application of election of remedies varies substantially based on whether the jurisdiction has adopted permissive alternative pleading rules. Under federal practice and most state codes modeled on the FRCP, a party is not forced to elect between inconsistent remedies at the pleading stage; election effectively occurs at or after judgment. In contrast, the equitable election doctrine applicable to wills and trusts retains jurisdiction-specific contours, and researchers should not assume uniformity across states in how courts determine when an election has been made or implied by conduct. ---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia: Remedies — Overview and Election of Remedies The Law Mind Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia: Defenses — Waiver and Election of Remedies The Law Mind Military, Veterans & Admiralty Law Encyclopedia: Jones Act — Seaman Status, Negligence, and the Election of Remedies ---
Related Terms
Waiver Estoppel Equitable Election Rescission Affirmance Alternative Pleading Approbation and Reprobation Inconsistent Remedies Restitution Election Under a Will Coverture (historical context) Jones Act (admiralty election context)
ELECTION OF RIGHTS OR REMEDIESsubentry
Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928
ried woman may be permitted to elect; 4 Kay & J. 409; 59 Wis. 483; 65 Pa. 451; in others that she cannot; 8 Myl. & Cr. 171; Lord Cairns in L. R. 7 H. L. 67; 9 Ch. D. 863; but it may be referred to a master to inquire what is best for her; 2 Ves. 60; L R. 7 H. L. 67 (but in this case there were also infants). It was held that she must elect by Lord Hatherly in 2 J. & H. 844 (which Brett says "led to the new depar- ture)"; followed by Kay, L. J., in 28 Ch. D. 124; contra; by Sir George Jessel in 18 Ch. D. 531; followed by Chitty, L. J., in 27 Ch. D. 606. The decisions of Lord Hatherly and Sir George Jessel were referred to without disapproval by Lord Selborne, one in L. R. 8 Ch. 578, and the other in 8 App. Cas. 420. Finally in 31 Ch. D. 275, (reversing 28 Ch. Div. 124,) it was held that the wife would not be compelled to elect, but was entitled to retain both funds, on the ground that the settled fund had a restraint on anticipation. This case reviews the conflicting decisions and considers that they leave the ques- tion to be determined on principle. It is treated as deciding that but for the fact on which the case was put it was one for elec- tion; Snell, Pr. Eq. 247; and it assumed without discussion that election applied to married women, and thereby as Brett con- siders "sealed the triumph of the new election"; Lead. Cas. Mod. Eq. 257. With regard to infants, the practice has varied very much, and the cases are col- lected in 1 Swanst. 413, note (c). The in- fant has been permitted to elect after coming of age in some cases; cas. t. Talbot 176; id. 130; 2 Ves. Sr. 12; 8 Bro. P. C. 173; in others an inquiry has been directed; 2 Sch. & Lef. 266; and this may be considered the usual practice; 1 Bro. P. C. 300; 2 Eq. 481; though the court has elected for them without reference; 26 L. J. N. 8. Ch. 148; 2 Bland, Ch. 606; and the same practice is adopted when the persons to elect are un- born; Brett, L. Cas. Mod. Eq. 260. See, generally, on this subject, Serrell, Equit. Doct. Elect. 184. Persons not under disabilities are bound to elect; 79 N. Y. 478. Positive acts of acceptance or renunciation are not indis- pensable, but the question is to be deter- mined from the circumstances of each case as it arises; 21 Beav. 447; 18 Price 782; 1 M'Clel. 541; 15 Pa. 430. And the election need not be made till all the circumstances are known; 1 Bro. Ch. 186, 445; 2 V. & Β. 222; 1 M'Cl. & Y. 569. See, generally, 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 1075; 1 Swanst. 402, note; 2 Rop. Leg. 480-578; Bisph. Eq. 295. A widow has a right, regulated by statute in the several states, to declare her election between the provisions in her favor under the will of her husband and her right of dower. When bound to elect she is en- titled to full information and ascertain- ment of the values of the two interests, and she may file a bill in equity to obtain them; 2 Scribn. Dow. 497, and cases cited at large in note 1. The right must be ex- ercised by the widow herself, being purely personal; 6 Gray 807; 6 Ired. L. 274; and the rule is not subject to exception even if she is insane; 7 Ired. L. 72; 5 Md. 503. After the widow's death within forty days with- out election, her representatives could not make a renunciation of the will; 8 Har. & McH. 95; 37 Ohio St. 460; 71 Ind. 455; 90 Pa. 384. For the statutory provisions on the subject see 2 Scribn. Dow. 505, notes. There must be an intention to elect and knowledge of her rights so as to constitute a deliberate choice: 43 Pa. 474; 2 Gr. Ch. 504; and an election made under a mistake does not conclude her; 1 Bro. C. C. 445; 12 Ves. Jr. 136; 4 Dessaus. 274; but if she is acquainted with the material facts the elec- tion will bind her even though she do not understand her legal rights; 21 Pa. 407. But see 6 Humph. 220; 11 Ohio St. 886. Nor is she concluded by an election procured by fraud; 10 Yerg. 94; 2 Dana 18. In some cases an election is implied, but so much difficulty is found to exist with respect to what constitutes an implied election that it will generally remain to be determined by the circumstances of each case. See 1 Lead. Cas. in Eq. 537, 570, and cases cited; 5 Call 481; 2 Hen. & Mun. 881; 12 Pick. 146; 43 Pa. 474; 6 Ohio St. 480; 14 Gratt. 518. In many states, if deprived of the provision given in lieu of dower, the widow is entitled to demand her dower; 2 Scribn. Dow. 525; 2 Harris, N. J. 450; if the deprivation. be substantial though not total; 32 Me. 182; or if a previous application for dower has been refused; 1 Metc. 66; or the statutory period for demand has passed before she was advised of the failure of her provision; 82 Me. 133; or she had previously elected to take under the will; 20 Wend. 564, affg. 7 Paige 221. In taking a testamentary pro- vision in lieu of dower the widow becomes a purchaser for a valuable consideration; 1 Lead. Cas. in Eq. 511, 570; 2 Scribn. Dow. 527, and cases cited in note; 4 Del. Ch. 289. In cases not covered by statute a widow may be required to elect upon gener

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In
The Law Mind Legal Dictionary. This is a legal research library, not a lawyer.
Dictionary • Encyclopedia • Sign In