Download file to see previous pages...
Equity was developed in order to overcome the inadequacies of common law. Equitable remedies are available in a number of areas where common law is either incapable of providing justice or is not faultless in providing justice to the individuals. The main purpose of equity jurisdiction is to support the existing laws. Equity was developed to propose principles that are either ignored by common law or not formally accepted in that set of law. Moreover, equity proposes certain remedies that are unavailable in common law. In certain circumstance, common law decisions or remedies are insufficient to provide justice to the innocent (Hudson, 2009). For instance, in the matters involving mortgages, where the lenders are to a piece of land as a security of the loan granted, the principles in equity and common law greatly distinguish from each other. Let’s assume that Angelina grants a loan of $5,000 to Joseph, after considering a piece of land as a security that worth $8,000. According to the contract, the land in question would be legally transferred on the name of the lender (Angelina), on the terms that she would retransfer the land on Josephs name if he repays the loan in the specified time. If Joseph fails to repay the loan in the specified time, common law gives no entitlement to Joseph for the land that was conveyed and the duty to repay the loan still exists. However, equity practices such situations in a different and more reasonable manner. According to the rules of equity, Joseph would be given another chance to repay the loan in a new specified time. If Joseph still fails to repay, the land which was let for security will be sold and the loan will be repaid. The additional amount would be given to Joseph as it belongs to him.
It is not just the matters of mortgages where equity provides a more reasonable and just decision but it also works better in many other areas. Equity and common law are not only different in terms of laws and
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Equity is uniquely conscience based and is a discretionary regime which has its own set of principles .Sometimes it can be more powerful than common law rights, because when common law fails to provide adequate remedy, equity may come into force to provide remedy.
In "Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970) AC 4004." The House of Lords added neighbor principle to the negligence and also held relationship of proximity or neighborhood as an essence to constitute the negligence liable under Common law. In "Anns v Merton (1978) AC 728" the liability in tort was further expanded by holding that duty care should be assumed if the parties are proximate and duty dislodged.
The common law will be applied only where it is impossible to choose between the parties to the litigation in accordance with the principle that where there is equal equity, the law shall prevail. Therefore, in a situation in which there is no clear distinction to be drawn between parties as to which of them has the better claim in equity, the common law principle which best fits the case is applied (Hudson, 2004, p.9).
Spread over 70 hectares and employing over 3000 people, the Europapark also has three hotels, a campsite and a 'tipi-village', all of which together can provide accommodation to almost 4,128 customers. The hotels are of special interest for companies to hold conferences, meetings, etc, as they provide incentive to the participants to bring their families along.
Its rights are the basis for many areas of modern law and its remedies are used daily by the legal practitioner of the 1990s. Its role in the English legal system is, therefore, one of the both historical creation and modern development and usage. Equity developed as a result of the inflexibility of the common law2.
Not bound by precedents, it tempered the harshness and inflexibility of common law especially when dealing with families and children. Although both systems merged in 1875, the rules of equity prevail in a case of a conflict with the rules of common law.1
Since the judges could invent new writs any time they wanted, the Parliament decided to allow the judges writ one at a time. This system was unjust since even with the King's Bench having power over a case, the plaintiff might still not win if there was not a single form of action that combined the jurisdiction and power of the King's Bench.
arly conscious of how physically vulnerable humanity is to the ravages of disease and has made me conclude that good health is the basis of happiness: everything else, including economic prosperity, comes in at second best! Somewhere in my early teens, I became aware of the fact