Starsky

By the judgment appealed from the trial court (invoking its equitable power) refused to mandate respondents to continue in force a written contract wherein respondents employed appellant as an associate professor commencing September 1, 1971, for one year. Appellant asserts that the contract involved is complete in all respects as required by the Administrative Code sections 42700(j), 42800, 42802 and was not terminated or rescinded as specifically required by sections 24306, 24308 and 24309 of the Education Code.

The record, findings and a recital in the judgment show that the judgment is predicated on the conclusions of the trial court that there was no contract, but if there was, it was induced by dishonest conduct on the part of appellant which equated with unclean hands and that since mandate was not a matter of right but was an appeal to the conscience of the chancellor, a court of equity could reject enforcement of performance thereof. (Sipper v. Urban (1943) 22 Cal.2d 138 [ 137 P.2d 425 ]; Lukens v. Nye (1909) 156 Cal. 498 [ 105 P. 593 ]; Draper v. Grant (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 566 [ 205 P.2d 399 ].) However, as we point out infra, . equity must follow the law.…