Equity vs equality – What is an example of equity law?

Equity law vs common law

Equity vs equality: This picture of the common law tradition would be one-sided if it did not pay attention to the trend of equality. Like common law and legislation, equity capital is part of the law in common law countries. And like ordinary law, equality is a kind of law made by a judge. However, there are some differences.

Equity vs equality
Equity vs equality

Equity law UK

Equity originated in England in the fourteenth century, when those who were unhappy with the results of the common law process asked the king to intervene on their behalf. If the result of common law is found to be too unequal for a particular case, the King, or rather his Secretariat, the Chancellery, may ask the courts of common law to reconsider the case.

Later, the Chancellor began handling such matters himself, and requests were immediately forwarded to the Chancellor (Secretary to the King) instead of the King. Later, a court of chance finally emerged over the centuries, creating a separate branch of law: equity.

Fairness Equity consists of a body of principles and principles designed to mitigate the harsh consequences that may result from the application of common law in some cases.

As the term “equity” suggests, this part of the law is specifically focused on achieving fair results. In fact, equity may be aimed at reforming common law, with common law being the starting point when cases are decided. However, some branches of the law were developed only in equity, the law of trust being the most prominent example.

Equity law examples

The following equity example illustrates how equality is different from common law. Angela is an unmarried woman with a two-year-old son, Michael. Angela wants to give Michael £50,000 in case she dies unexpectedly. However, Michael is too young to handle such a small amount of money.

So, Angela relies on her friend Jane for money, who will act as a safe keeper for Michaels’ money. Under common law, Jane will be the sole owner of the money and it will be up to her to decide whether she keeps the money for Michael. Michael would have no legal recourse if Jane misused her position. This is unfair because the money was for Michael and he was trusted to keep Angela only for Michael.

Inequality could give Michael a stronger legal position. Angela will be the legal owner of the money (according to common law), but acts as a “trustee”. Michael will be the “beneficiary owner” of the money, and if Angela does not have the money, there is a legal remedy.

Although it may be fair to say today that equality is part of the law in the tradition of common law, it was originally meant as an exception to the law, and therefore not part of the law. This difference still appears in English terms, where the difference is between law (common law) and equality.

The historical roots of equity, such as the fact that equity was applied by the Chancery Court as an amendment to be decided by “ordinary” ordinary legal courts, explaining that the application of equity is in fact separate. Was done by the courts. Numerous reforms of the judicial system in England in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries meant, however, that a court could apply both common law and the principle of equality to resolve disputes.

The debate continues as to whether this combination of courts also combines common law and equality, or whether – as the metaphor would be – “the two streams of jurisdiction, even if they run on the same channel, run side by side.” Do not mix in their water.

Leave a Comment