Equitable remedy

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

Browne-Wilkinson’s judgment in Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns, the principles of equitable remedy for breach of trust had remained muddled due to academic criticism of His Lordship’s judgment. It was not until the Supreme Court decision in AIB Group v Mark Reddler that “it would be a backward step […] to depart from Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s fundamental analysis” that His Lordship’s judgment was clarified, and the principles of equitable unriddled. One of the scholars that contributed to the confusion prior

Remedies represent some interesting illustrations of the difference between law and equity; a difference which arose as; ‘an accident of history,’ according to Lord Nicholls in A-G v Blake. Ordinarily legal rights and remedies remain separate from equitable ones. Some similarities do, nevertheless, occur. For illustration, an injunction, an equitable remedy, can be sought for an anticipatory breach of contract, or to stop a nuisance

case of AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors , and what ensued from it. The case deals with the applicable principles of causation in the case of a breach in trust. It held that a “but for” was application in such circumstances for equitable compensation. The case deals with a standard re-mortgage of a residential property. It starts when Mr and Mrs Sondhi applied to AIB group for a loan of £3.3m. Noting that they already had a mortgage with Barclays, their intention was to redeem it

became known as the King’s conscience. Where the use of the common law to settle a dispute proved to be unjustified, the Chancellor would provide a just remedy. In this way, the King’s common law became well founded, and the concept of equity was formed. Common law suits were known to be inflexible, as the common law only provided one type of remedy, damages, which was not always an adequate solution to every problem . Some litigants grew dissatisfied with the system and petitioned to the King. However

the exceptions to such titles, priorities of interests, caveats and remedies available for mortgagees. Ultimately, we will be unraveling whose interests are prioritized over the property and the remedies available to those that have been negatively impacted by their interest over the property. II CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF LAND It is essential to note that the first interest over the property was formed by Michael’s equitable interest. After

property on trust and a gift is made to him on that basis (Re Boyes, REF5). To plead absence of the Wills Act formalities as a defence and thus claim the gift is outright, would be to use statute as an instrument of fraud, and would be against the equitable maxim. Maudsley disagrees, pointing out that with a half secret trust, fraud is rarely an issue as the trust is apparent from the Will and there is no possibility that the legatee can keep the Property (although the intended beneficiary may not get

solution is unavailable or where there was an availability of a remedy but it was not fit for the plaintiff loss. Moreover, the common law was studded with formality. If two parties engage in a verbal contract in case of common law, common law under no circumstances will spot the contract not provide any remedy to it. This was one of the major flaws because whatever be the circumstances. In many cases equity stepped up and provided remedies irrespective of the fact that there was a lack of formality

Specific performance is the most common remedy for a breach of contract. Answer: FALSE Diff: 1 Topic: Substantial Performance: Minor Breach 5) A material breach allows the other party to rescind a contract.

On May 26, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in SEC v. Graham, No. 14-13562 (11th Cir. May 26, 2016), reached an important decision. The court extended the reach of 28 U.S.C. § 2462, the five-year statute of limitations for “any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture” applicable to enforcement actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The court held that SEC enforcement actions for declaratory relief and disgorgement were subject to the five-year statute