Is a desire for vindication a legitimate reason for a lawsuit?
<p>I understate that a judge can often determine a monetary payment for the violation of a law.</p>
<p>But, what if the primary motive for undertaking a law suit is to not be the fool of the other?</p>
<p>Is it better to pretend the dispute is just about money, when it is really all about one's honor?</p>

<h2>It can be</h2>
<p>Defamation suits, in particular, are often undertaken to vindicate reputation rather than to secure monetary damages. This is one reason why suits awarding nominal damages for libel (sums such as $1, or six-pence or  one farthing in the UK) are sometimes regarded as victories by plaintiffs, even though such plaintiffs gained no money, and in some cases had to spend much time,. effort, and money to get such a verdict. In other cases such low damages are known as &quot;contemptuous damages&quot; expressing the view that &quot;Yes you were technically defamed, but your reputation was of no value&quot;. The damages of one half-penny awarded in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dering_v_Uris" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Dering v Uris and Others</em> (1964</a> had been taken in this latter sense.</p>
<p>See also the Wikippedia section on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damages#Nominal_damages" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;Nominal damages&quot;</a> where it is stated that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The [US] Supreme Court decided 8–1 in the 2021 case <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzuegbunam_v._Preczewski" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski</em></a> that nominal damages are appropriate means to redress violated rights otherwise now rendered moot.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In some kinds of cases in some jurisdictions a plaintiff may indicate that s/he does not desire monetary damages, only a judgement supporting his or her position. In other cases a suit must be framed as one for monetary damages, but the plaintiff may state that the verdict, not the damages, is what is most desired.</p>
<p>There is noting illegal nor (in my view) immoral in bringing a suit more for public vindication than for money damages. There is, of course, a risk that the case will not turn out as the plaintiff wishes. Whether a states lack of interest in damages will favorably or unfavorably impress the judge or jury can vary widely, and cannot be predicted in general.</p>
<p>Defamation case verdicts sometimes include an order for one side to apologize to the other. Whether such an apology has value is a matter of opinion.</p>

<h2>Courts can’t order the restitution of “honor”</h2>
<p>In essence, there are only three things a court can do:</p>
<ul>
<li>make an order for payment of money</li>
<li>make an order for someone to do some act</li>
<li>make an order prohibiting someone from doing act.</li>
</ul>
<p>A plaintiff who can’t state which of these they want and the legal basis for why they are entitled to it will have their case dismissed.</p>

international british-columbia legal-concepts ohio