Legal Definitions - quae est eadem

quae est eadem

This Latin phrase translates to "which is the same." In historical legal practice, it was used as a defense where a defendant acknowledged performing the specific action described by the plaintiff but argued that this exact same action was legally justified or had a different, permissible legal character. Essentially, the defendant would say, "Yes, I did what you claim, but my doing of it was not wrongful because I had a legal right or reason to do so." It served to admit the factual occurrence of the act while denying its alleged unlawful nature.

Here are some examples illustrating this concept:

• Contractual Performance: A software development company (defendant) is sued by a client (plaintiff) for failing to deliver a custom application by the agreed-upon deadline. The software company might use the principle of quae est eadem by stating, "We acknowledge that the application was not delivered by the original deadline, which is the same delay you allege. However, this delay was caused by a critical component supplier going out of business unexpectedly, triggering the 'force majeure' clause in our contract, which legally excuses us from the original delivery date." Here, the company admits the same delay but asserts a contractual justification that makes it a non-breach.

• Intellectual Property Use: A photographer (plaintiff) sues an advertising agency (defendant) for copyright infringement, claiming the agency used their copyrighted image in a campaign without permission. The advertising agency might respond using the principle of quae est eadem by saying, "We admit to using the image in question in our campaign, which is the same use you are alleging as infringement. However, we had a valid, non-exclusive license agreement with you that permitted this specific use for a period that covers the campaign's duration, making our action entirely lawful." The agency acknowledges the same act of using the image but asserts a legal right to do so.

• Property Access: A homeowner (plaintiff) sues a landscaping company (defendant) for trespass, alleging that the company's crew entered their backyard and trimmed trees without authorization. The landscaping company could invoke the principle of quae est eadem by stating, "We confirm that our crew entered your backyard and trimmed the trees, which is the same entry and action you describe. However, our company holds a valid, signed service agreement with your neighbor, whose property line extends to that area, granting us the legal right to access that specific portion of the trees for maintenance, thereby making our entry and trimming permissible and not a trespass against you." The company admits the same entry and action but provides a legal justification based on an agreement with an adjacent property owner.