“[A]T Common Law, There Is No Contribution Among Joint

Equity is that part in the law that moderates the harshness of common law and statute and because of this persons seeking assistance from an unconscionable transaction have been able to find relief through equity. Although equity only appears in the most repugnant of situations, it comes as in disbelief, that the courts would consider a newer level of standard for unconscionability. The following paper considers the effect of the statement made and the ramifications of the statement through equity.

This essay will critically analyse and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of retributivism. Throughout history the term “retributivism” has had a diverse though correlated meanings. The most significant meaning of retributivism is righting or rebalancing the scale of justice, through the use of mechanisms such as punishment e.g. punishing criminals in order to achieve justice for the offence they have committed. Retributivism also looks back at the offence, since the offender has committed a wrongful offence which needs to be punished. One of the core reasons why offenders should be punished is that they need to ‘pay back’ for the offence they have committed; the theory that is associated with retributivism is the just deserts theory. A theory is a concept that is based upon a hypothesis that can be supported with evidence. The just desert theory is used to justify retributivism punishment. Unlike other theories of punishment that mainly concentrates on preventing future crime, such as rehabilitation, deterrence and reductivism. The retributivist theory primarily concentrates on punishing past crimes. Although others would disagree with this for the reason that they think punishment should be used to ‘reduce’ and ‘prevent future crimes’ (Carlsmith et al., 2002 p284). The essay will take into account the views of various theories; theorist and philosophers so that the strengths and weaknesses of

state prosecutor. (Lippman, 2007) The purpose of the civil action is to compensate you with

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

In this essay, the focus is on whether it is morally objectionable for a person to recover damages from another’s breach of contract that results in a better financial position than they would have been if the breach had not occurred. This is because in deciding whether to preserve the principle in Clark, law-makers would place high regard on the analysis of Clark’s normative outcome. The following points are the key arguments against awarding a sum to a higher pecuniary advantage??? Such as Clark, which can be subsequently rebutted in this analysis with “normative” research.

Our current system of law and justice is oriented completely to the offender. “Restorative” justice is a term used to describe a number of programs that seek to do…what? What is “Restorative” justice and how may it work? Pg 67

Demanding non-wrongdoers to finance the compensation of descendants who sustain a livelihood above the specific level of livelihood is unjustifiable, as considerations for distributive justice may take precedent over retributive justice (Perez. 2012). Even still, should the victims of descendants be living below a specific welfare level, the circumstance must be unaffected by third party influence. They must have exasperated all means for raising their situation above the specific welfare line and the reasoning for the entrapment must solely be ascribable to the historical injustice itself, or the failure by perpetrators and consequential descendants to redress the wrong. The claim for setback compensation is unconvincing if the setbacks in attributed to irresponsible life choices, such as a failure to achieve the minimum requirement level of state education, involvement in crime or addiction to drugs and alcohol. Examples such as these qualify as external influences, unassociated with the original wrong in question and therefore, compensation is not

The method that Nozick proposes to rectify past injustices of holdings should also be rejected. Nozick creates an ideal principle of rectification that states that when an injustice of holdings is discovered, an extensive investigation must ensue in which all of the transfer or acquisitions of that particular holding must be traced back to the original injustice.3 After this is done, a best estimate must be made as to what would have occurred to that holding if the original injustice hadn’t occurred and that conclusion must be realized.4 If this principle would be upheld, a person who possesses a particular holding, which they acquired through a ‘just’ transfer or acquisition as defined by Nozick’s entitlement theory, would potentially have to relinquish that holding completely through the rectification process is they are not in the conclusion that is realized. This raises one very vital question, is one injustice permissible in order to rectify a

The cost of victimizations cannot be measured in terms of monetary. However, victims’ compensation can be recovered through financial losses in several ways. Victims can be compensated by courts ordering an offender to pay restitution in a criminal case. It addresses the criminal behavior that threatens society while protecting the rights of the victim. Victims can also be compensated by lawsuits from damages, third-party civil lawsuits, private insurance reimbursement, government compensation play payments, and legislation prohibiting criminals from cashing in on their notoriety. Deprivation is a final method for recovering victim's compensation. It prohibits offenders in high profile cases from making a profit from selling their story-line

Equity has been described as a ‘mysterious creature’ that lies distinctly alongside the common law. In considering the statement, there is an almost linear reversal in which the remedies in equity procure a type of right not necessarily available in the common law. This peculiar jurisdiction has created consistent controversy especially in regards to the fusion of the common law and equity. To understand further, this essay will consider the relationship between equity and the common law. The development of equity alongside the common law through its history and intention, and application in case law will be imperative in the discussion of the statement. In conjunction with an analysis of fusion, it will become apparent that equitable damages were enlivened, separate to, in unfair circumstances where no rights/damages existed within the common law. In trying to tread the murky waters of the distinction yet the procedural fusion of equity and common law, the contention of this essay becomes apparent. Effectively, this essay aims to highlight that the history, intention, application and fusion fallacies regarding equity, all which point to an assertion that rights in equity are indeed the product of its remedies. Whether they are merely ‘two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters’, is yet to be seen.

It is the purpose of this essay to discuss whether the implementation of strict liability within criminal law system is a necessary means for combating crime, and if there is any justification for its use. Strict liability is the placing of liability upon the defendant(s), regardless of whether or not mens rea is present. This can include instances of negligence, carelessness or accident. There are a number of arguments for and against strict liability, and this essay will identify and explore these arguments.

The classical view that 'no mens rea, no crime' has long ago been eroded and several laws in India and abroad, especially regarding economic crimes and departmental penalties, have created severe punishments even where the offences have been defined to exclude mens rea. Therefore, the contention that Section 37 (1) fastens a heavy liability regardless of fault has no force in depriving the forfeiture of the character of penalty.

The court of appeal in Akindele briefly referred to a new approach to the personal liability of a recipient known as the unjust enrichment approach. This approach does not disregard the issue of dishonesty entirely, rather it restricts the issue of dishonesty to the application of the change of position defence in that only an innocent recipient can avail themselves of this defence .

of the business function. The foundation of that function is the formal contract, the basis of agreements in any business enterprise, from the initial business license to verbal or written agreements with customers and clients. To appreciate the impact of human exchange on society requires a general overview of the interplay of contracts, torts and crimes as managed in the existing legal system. Eventually, some part of the legal system will evolve to reflect current social awareness, while maintaining the spirit of the law.

The gist of this kind of action is that the defendant, upon the circumstances of the case, is obliged by the ties of natural justice and equity to refund the money. But apart from this it should be observed that did not use the word equity to denote the jurisdiction of chancery but the synonym for “jus naturale”. Nor, while he based the obligations of quasi contract upon the duty of restoring benefits unjustly obtained, did he assert that in every such case an action would lie. As he declared in Weston v. Downes, ‘I am a great friend to the action for money had and received, and therefore I am not stretching, lest I should endanger it’ thus the principle of unjust benefit explained the cases falling within the scope of quasi contracts: it did not automatically invoke the remedy.