Equity versus Common Law - Coursework Example

Equity & Common Law” Background and History: Back in 1066, the rather basic system of legislature and judicature in England ranged from the king’s council to village meetings. King would send royal commissioners on ‘circuits’ to different parts of the country to resolve disputes. In time, this led to the development of rules of law, selected from the differing local customs, conveniently called the ‘common law’, which was to be applied uniformly in all trails. Crafted out of bits and pieces, however, this body of law was fraught with difficulties and technicalities. Actions, e.g., could only be begun by purchasing standard `writs’ from the king’s Chancery. Where a writ was not available for a new type of dispute, no action could be brought. Remedies were effectively limited to `damages’, i.e., monetary compensation, which clearly suited the rich. It was in this context that equity came to be introduced (Owens, 2001). Equity connotes justice and fairness. Under the English law, the term carries a specific meaning and refers to that set of legal principles which were developed by the court of chancery in response to the rigidity of the common law, and which supplements the common law. It provided new rights and better, albeit discretionary, remedies. Some common equitable remedies are specific performance (mandatory performance of an obligation); Injunctions (order to do or not to do a certain thing); Rescission (`undoing’ a contract to get back to pre-contract position) and Quantum Meruit (pay what is due). However, a subjective approach to `justice’ inevitably opened up the possibility of whimsical and unpredictable decisions. Further, two parallel legal regimes led to the obvious confusion in the public and, at times, even denial of justice. A balance between the two regimes had to be found and the result was the Judicature Acts 1873-5. Now, there is a single set of courts applying both common law and equity _ whichever is appropriate to the issue in hand. In case of conflict, common law prevails. Equity vs. Common Law: There are differences between common law and equity. These two are legal principles but are used in different scenarios. The most important and well known difference between these two principles of law is the remedies that they offer. A court of law provides remedies, normally, in monetary terms often called as damages. However, equity provides the remedies in the form of injunctions, or decrees to perform a particular act or to forbear from acting in a particular behavior (Antoine, 2008). The remedies provided by equity are often more favorable and helpful for the complainant. There are many examples available in our daily life activities where remedies in term of money do not completely pay damages or eliminate risks. Hence, equity provides justice in such cases where monetary values cannot pay back the damages caused. In the case of Wood v Scarth (1855 and 1858), the plaintiff sued the defendant in the court of Chancery requesting the order for specific performance. However, the cases tried in equity courts are decided on the discretion of the courts and not on the will of the plaintiff. After reviewing the situations and circumstances provided, the court decided not to provide specific performance as the court decided that it will be overly harsh on the defendant. Since, the contract between the claimant and defendant was breached and the fact that defendant mistakenly entered in to that contract was not enough to invalidate it, the claimant then, brought this case in a common law court. The trial ended up deciding to award damages for the breach of the contract. There is no jury in equity. This is another important distinction between these two set of legal principles. A judge is the person who dispenses equitable remedies as it is the issue of law and is not dependant on the intervention of the jury as Trier of fact. The difference between these two legal sets of legal principles (i.e. equity and common law) carries an important place in the legal system. The reason of such an importance to this distinction is to decide whether the case subjects to judicial trial or equitable trial. The decision of trying a case under either of these sets of legal principles depends on the remedies that are requested by claimant. If the claimant requests to receive damages in monetary terms, or return of a particular commodity or land etc., such reliefs are claimed under judicial proceedings. Hence, such cases require a trial by jury. Whereas, if the claimant requests an injunction, declaratory judgment, specific performance or any other nonmonetary relief, such cases are subject to be claimed under equitable principles. Another important distinction between equity and common law is the base of decisions made by them. Law sets up its decisions by making references to legal principles and statues. On the other hand, equity decides on the case by putting more emphasis on fairness and provides a flexible approach on the basis of circumstances and situations described in the case. For example, in medieval times, if a person (A) borrows an amount of 560 pounds from the other person (B), he might be required to sign a formal document (bond) to assure and promise the repayment. If A successfully repays the loan but fails to cancel the bond for any reason it may be problematic for him. It is possible that after the repayment, B may demand for the loan repayment again and may sue A for that, providing the bond as evidence. In such circumstances, the common law courts reject the need to look beyond the evidence and A would be held liable to repay loan second time. However, equity considers the whole scenario, take into account the circumstances and base the decision on the basis of fair and reasonable behavior. Equity consists of general guidelines which are recognized as “maxims of equity” (Hepburn, 2001). Equity was criticized because of having such flexible approach and no rigid or firm rules to decide the cases under consideration. Every Lord Chancellor (whose job was to administer the courts of equity on King’s behalf) was to decide the case according to his wits and wisdom. However, today equity has rigid rules and principles like common law. The maxims of equity are important for the decisions which clearly indicate some rigid rules but provide flexibility to make the decision. Relationship between Equity and Common Law: The relationship between common law and equity was meant to be f mutuality. However, there are certain circumstances where this objective loses its place. The judicature system was organized with an objective to make an official administrative union between these two official laws. Unexpectedly, the introduction of this system is subject to create obscurity between these two bodies of law. The Judicature Act 1873-1875 reduced the procedural requirements and made it easy for public to attain justice. The ‘fusion ‘ of common law and equity was adopted according to this act and from that time, common law and equity were governed in a single court. However, fusion debate rose as a result of it. The anti-fusionists argue that the aim of creating Judicature act was to combine the procedural principles of both common law and equity to attain a much simplified procedure (OHara, 1989). But, the act did not achieve this objective by fusing relative substantive laws and as a result the principles and precedent in these two bodies of law prevail. In contrast, fusionists claim that the act provides the option open to fusion the substantive principles of both laws. They also claim that judicature act was the beginning of the procedural simplification process and further harmonization of the two laws would complete this process. In conclusion, we can say that although common law and equity have different procedural rules and different principles both have the same eventual objective of organizing a structure of law that accomplishes the right balance between certainty and justice. From this point of view, it is evident that both of these laws are dependent on one another and the reason behind it is that English system has tended greatly to associate common law with certainty and equity with justice. Word Count: 1,352 Bibliography: Antoine, Rose-Marie Belle. Commonwealth Caribbean Law and Legal Systems. New York: Routledge-Cavendish, 2008. Owens, Keith. Law for Non-Law Students. London: Cavendish, 2001. Hepburn, Samantha. Principles of Equity and Trusts. Sydney, N.S.W.: Cavendish, 2001. OHara, R. A. Common Law and Equity in Great Britain. Professional studies in British architectural practice, package 4/17A, package 4/17B, package 4/17C. [London, England]: Royal Institute of British Architects, 1989. Read More