Introduction.
Equity by its nature is a fluid subject where maxims are simply guidelines to be used or ignored at the whim of the court and solutions to litigation sometimes aim at justice (or expedience) at the expense of the legal rules of equity (equity will [sometimes] follow the law).
This is illustrated by the two overarching maxims where equity will not assist a volunteer and equity will not perfect an imperfect gift when in practise there are established systems of equity which often do assist a volunteer and under the very flexible principle of benevolent construction the courts often do perfect an imperfect gift. This is the case even where it appears to directly contradict common law such as that from Bridge LJ in Paul v Constance .
Into this fluid area of the law is imposed the common law in the premise of this essay from Turner LJ in Milroy v Lord : There are three modes of making a gift and these modes are mutually exclusive (1) An outright transfer of the legal title to the property (2) A transfer of the legal title to the property to a trustee to hold or (3) A self-declaration of trust.
This essay will look towards the cases and academic comment discussing this premise and the further recognised areas where equity does assist a volunteer and will perfect an imperfect gift and will conclude that it is difficult to state with any certainty that anything is mutually exclusive in equity and trusts.
Discussion.
The overview of this discussion is that there does
Equity has a major role through the Australian legal system, with its ability to control abhorrent situations inclusive of cases where unconscionable conduct is apparent. However in a recent case of the ACCC v Zanok Technologies Pty Ltd it was held that a high level of moral obloquy is needed to prove unconscionable conduct. This case has created the question of whether a ‘high moral obloquy’ creates a liability that goes outside the scope of unconscionability, specifically in cases dealt with in equity.
contracts do not supply an independent argument for the fairness of enforcing their terms…a hyp othetical contract is not simply a pale form of an actual contract; it is no contract at al.” 5 In the realm of social contract theory, ‘contractual metaphors’ are used to facilitate the mind’s digestion of otherwise abstract intelectual material. They are not to be understood as representing enforceable legal obligations. They are, however, quite useful in conceptualizing discussions vis -a-vis social justice.
All employees analyze their environment and strive to be recognized and rewarded for their hard work and dedication they put into the company, in a word they are seeking justice. Justice can be defined as a person receiving what they feel they are entitled to and if they do not receive what they deserve the situation may board on injustice. Unfortunately in today’s society justice and appreciation are not given out to all those deserving (Pinder, 1998). A major problem to address is how to keep the motivation level high in a company when the employees do not feel appreciated.
265. 2014). This is because there are differing views on the relationships between wealth, inequality and disorder and on how people of different classes are judged. Certain groups within society have the power to define what is order and disorder, whilst the vast majority do not. Consequently, as Harvard and Clarke state ‘There are numerous examples of distinctions made between similar behaviours all judged differently depending on social identities’ (Harvard C & Clarke Pg. 265. 2014). Therefore, according to Patrick Allen of Hodge, Jones & Allen Solicitors, (Bowcott,O. 2015) “It comes as no surprise that those in the lowest income bracket have the least trust in a legal system that appears unfair, confusing and inaccessible’, in contrast to the wealthy who have no difficulties in paying for such access. Thus, indicating that the poor and middle classes have little or no chance of having ‘equality before the law’. Thus, Inequalities in law persist, only changing slowly over time. However, laws are never static, always changing but not always for the betterment of
-Individuals should have the sense of fairness in, "what is distributed" or "what is right."
develop a normative foundation for empirical research. I first consider the legal definition of equity,
This paper examines the development and scope of accessory liability under the second limb of Barnes v Addy as it stands in both England and Australia. As to the law in England, the focus will be on the rearticulation of the principle of accessory liability under the second limb as stated in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan. In particular, it will consider the extent to which the decision has reconciled inconsistencies in earlier authority and remedied those issues propounded to be inherent in the traditional formulation of the principle. At this stage, this traditional principle remains good law in Australia. However, as suggested in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, there is potential for the
or fairness within the social, political, and economic perspectives. Equity forms the core value of both
The short story “Life in the Iron-Mills” by Rebecca Harding Davis is about a town that centers around an iron mill and the workers whose lives revolve around the mill. At the beginning of the story, this becomes evident when the narrator says, “The mills were deserted on Sundays, except by the hands who fed the fires, and those who had no lodgings and slept usually on the ash-heaps” (1715). The only day that there are not workers at the iron mill is on Sunday because most of Sunday is spent at church. In the short story, Davis begins to suggest that there are strong, spiritual elements throughout the story. Most people who think about God believe that God and faith can bring those who are struggling out of the dark cloud that seems to be encompassing their lives.
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.
Helping people is a noble thing to do especially when it comes to the application of natural justice, where human beings help those who are suffering. There is always a hidden intention in every action that is obscured by the notion of philanthropy. Returned favors expectation might not be the ultimate intention as to why people may perform an act (Michael, 1978). However, it will be illogical to say that these intentions were
* Equity is a particular body of law, consisting of rights and remedies, which evolved historically through the Courts of Chancery to mitigate the severity of the common law.
For a trust instrument to be valid and effective, it must be properly constituted. For a trust to be deemed as completely constituted, all of the relevant formalities must have been satisfied by the settlor, hence the legal title of the property must transfer to the trustees. The reason for a conveyance of property to the hands of trustee is explained in Milroy v Lord (1862) by Turner L.J. is that a valid and effectual voluntary settlement will exist, when the settlor have done everything which was necessary according to the nature of property comprised in the settlement, which is to transfer that particular property to the trustee. This requirement of constitution of trust is clear and straightforward, the
In Milroy v Lord , Turner LJ’s rule is that “Equity will not assist a volunteer to perfect an imperfect gift” and have laid down three ‘modes’ of making a gift: outright transfer, transfer on trust and self-declaration of trust. Imperfect gift only arose in first two scenarios when the formalities governing transfer of property are not satisfied, and the property eventually does not vest in the trustee/ donee. No constitution is required in case of self-declaration of trust as the right is already in the intended trustee. Trust in the last scenario will be perfectly constituted once the declaration is made as the right is already in the intended trustee.
one of the most important and complicated dilemmas of human philosophy: how do we choose