How Does Equity Fulfil the Common Law

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.

To be sure, modern laws are made to express the general will, a will that aims at the common good. This means that laws in most cases intend to protect every social member’s rights under the principle of justice and fairness. For telling examples one need to look no further than American judicial system. The access to the two courts systems, one federal court and one state court, provides citizens with the greatest potential to have their legal problems

Reconnecting this interpretation of justice to distribution purely means that the virtue of justice, being concerned with the liberty, rights, and fairness of citizen 's in a society, must consider how the economic opportunities and social conditions affect the citizens in that society. While there may be cases of perceived inequality among the citizens of the just society, those inequalities might be acceptable if certain principles of justice insured the fairness of liberty and rights inherent in justice as the first virtue. Further, any inequalities in authority and wealth could be just, only on the condition that they benefit all citizens. In

The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines fairness to be ‘the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is reasonable’ and justice as ‘the quality of being fair or reasonable’ (Oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com, 2014). Investigation of the characteristics of the Australian Legal System (ALS) including its adoption, structure and operational rules, reveal that for the most part the system is based on these two attributes. This inference is further evidenced by the legally binding operational framework assigned to the financial services industry and reflected in the codes of practice that also guide it.

develop a normative foundation for empirical research. I first consider the legal definition of equity,

In any legal system, there is a notion that the chief end to be achieved is justice. Clearly no one would advocate for an unjust legal system, but what if the clear distinction between just and unjust is not so clear? What if there are diametrically opposed moral principles supporting competing arguments? On three occasions, the Supreme Court of Virginia has declined ruling on whether the relationship with an assailant 's wife deprives a defendant of the right to self-defense.

Equity is a branch of law, founded in justice and fair dealing, which seeks to supply a remedy when no adequate remedy at law is available.

Courts of equity were the Chancery courts and existed historically as an entirely separate department from the Supreme Court, imitating the historical arrangement in place in England. A primary reason for the development of the Chancery courts was to provide a means of redress where the common law provided an inadequate remedy or no remedy at all. In equity, generally the court’s power is to direct someone to act or to forbear from acting, which circumstances clearly cannot be redressed by the award of money damages.

In this article, Justine Kirby (2000) analyzes the basic law, section 11 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, and acknowledged routines for "exchanging" commitments, and after

We live in a society that holds equality as a paramount value. Most, if not all, of the Western World generally believes in equality for its citizens, not as a privilege but as a fundamental right, and not to be infringed upon except for under the most egregious of circumstances. Not only is it a right, but it is a necessity, as claimed by philosopher Simone Weil, “Equality is a vital need of the human soul” (Simone Weil, 1940). In her essay “Equality”, Weil attempts to reconcile mankind’s need for equality with the preexisting inequalities in our societies. She does this by explaining two types of equality that she has defined: quantitative inequality, the inevitable inequalities due to the conditions of privilege or disadvantage under which we are born or find ourselves victim due to no fault of our own, and qualitative inequality, the inequalities contributed exclusively to the values which we have placed on one another as a result of our quantitative inequalities. By this definition, then, Weil communicates to the reader that equality is, in many ways, a function of the respect we express to one another and that every person is due the same amount of respect from individuals as well as institutions and customs; however, though contrary to intuition, Weil’s argument that there may be a certain level of inequality essential to creating the balance between the two types on inequality has altered my understanding of the justice system.

Equity is being fair and impartial in dealing with people in anything. Example of equity is as a manager you need to be fair to all workers in your dealings as to work schedules.

6. On what basis are Charter fundamental rights and freedoms open to restriction by Parliament or the provincial legislatures? Answer: Fundamental rights and freedoms may be restricted under s. 1 if the restriction can be shown to "be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Rights and freedoms may be "temporarily" overridden by the "notwithstanding" clause (s. 33) as well. 7. Why is the doctrine of stare decisis an important part of the Common Law system? Answer: The doctrine of stare decisis is the theory of precedent. Judges are expected to apply previous decisions to similar cases which come before them in order to maintain a degree of consistency in the law. By following this doctrine, the law is not only consistent, but others can predict how the law may be applied in similar. 8. How does the Common Law differ from the principles of equity? From statute law? Answer: Common Law and equity have different roots. The common law was the product of the common law courts. The principles of equity were originally principles or rules which the King applied in settling disputes which did not fall within the jurisdiction of the common law courts. Later, the King's Court (Chancery) used

The conventional accounts of Justice normally begin by stating a fundamental rule of Aristotle – Justice is to treat equals equally and unequals unequally, and that unequal treatment should be in proportion to the inequality. In everyday life though, justice is seen as an attribute of law, while all laws are not necessarily just. Many great socio- political movements of the world have focused from time to time on unjust laws eg Apartheid laws in South Africa and Caste laws in India. Impartiality and fairness are understood to be the two aspects of justice. But it would be misleading to suggest that Justice refers solely to the fair application of a rule.

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.

Equity vs Equality. Over the years, multiple distinguished authors, politicians, teachers, and philosophers have weighed with their opinion. Equality is ultimate state of being equal in all things, including opportunists, states, and rights. Equity, on the other hand, describes being fair and impartial in all situations. Words that are so similar yet, completely different. Equity is being fair, and being fair doesn't always mean being completely equal to everybody. Equality, sounds good however as time has shown equality is only beneficial if everyone has the same advantages and all benefit equally from the system . What happens when everyone does not have the same inborn advantages? We begin to have unfair disadvantages aimed at marginalized people. Equity is the path that as a society, we must take in order to improve.