What is equity?

Indricotherium

I'm starting to think about picking modules for next year......

I've asked lots of people, done a bit with google, and even read a bit from a few books...

I still have not a clue what equity is??

Any help appreciated!!

FreudianSlippers

Sounds like you should take the module then tbh!

'What is equity?' is a complex question really. But, simply put, it is a set of principles which operates to mitigate the severity of common law. The principles can be applied to avoid situations where there would be injustice if the common law was strictly applied.
It is quite an interesting area but can be slightly dull. I would say it would depend on what your degree is in.

Tom Young

Oh sweet mother of divine God.

FreudianSlippers

Am I confused? I feel confused.

Maura74

Sorry for my reply before, must get my glasses changed as I read it as equality LOL...

BornToKill

But isn't "Equity is equality" one of the maxims of equity?

FreudianSlippers

BornToKill wrote: »

But isn't "Equity is equality" one of the maxims of equity?

I think it's the opposite way around: Equality is equity.

Procrastastudy

Basically - very basically...

If someone steals you sheep the common law only provides for damages. However what you want is your sheep back. This is where equity comes in - the courts used to be separate in England but where incorporated in the 1870s. It used to be if you wanted an equitable remedy you went to one court and if you wanted a common law one you went to another.

It becomes more useful when talking about things like nuisance. Say your neighbour is waking you up at 3am every morning because he has stolen a load of sheep and they are bleating. Common law will only award you damages - but what you REALLY want is an injunction (or equitable remedy) to make him stop.

Almost everything a civil court does outside of awarding money is an equitable remedy - these are guided by some rules called maxims some are;

One must come to equity with clean hands
One who expects equity must do equity

They are also discretionary - which means they are up to the judge to decide. That may seem very arbitrary and quite a well respected Judge says he prefers to see them as "not automatic" rather than discretionary -but that is a rather semantic distinction.

BornToKill

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think it's the opposite way around: Equality is equity.

If you say so, though I do not see the distinction.

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Say your neighbour is waking you up at 3am every morning because he has stolen a load of sheep and they are bleating. Common law will only award you damages - but what you REALLY want is an injunction (or equitable remedy) to make him stop.

Can you injunct someone to stop committing theft?

Procrastastudy

Sorry bad example - it was just to illustrate that damages are not always the best answer. Specific performance though maybe.

Tom Young

My post above was in jest - FYI. Now that the poster who was having a glasses malfunction has deleted their post it's redundant

Farcear

Indricotherium wrote: »

I'm starting to think about picking modules for next year......

Honestly, it doesn't really matter what this subject is about because...

If you are a law student with an interest in pursuing a career in law (i.e. this isn't just some random module you are taking as part of your engineering degree), then I think you would be making a huge mistake by not taking Equity.

• If you are considering a career as a solicitor, Equity is one of the FE-1 exams (so this gives you a good head-start); or
  
• If you are considering a career as a barrister, I believe you need Equity in your undergrad to sit the entrance exam in the first place.

krd

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

It becomes more useful when talking about things like nuisance. Say your neighbour is waking you up at 3am every morning because he has stolen a load of sheep and they are bleating. Common law will only award you damages - but what you REALLY want is an injunction (or equitable remedy) to make him stop.

Yes, a remedy to make him stop. And as this being 1870, the remedy I'd like to see is my neighbour dangling by his neck. Or see him transported to the colonies for his crimes - though I'd like to hang onto his 12 year-old daughter, as she's good with the sheep and might make a fine wife. This being 1870, nothing wrong with taking a 12-year-old, who's good with sheep and bating her into a fine shape of a wife.

Or preferably, see my neighbour swing from that neck of his, kape his daughter and get me sheep back. Which court should I petition?

Procrastastudy

krd wrote: »

Yes, a remedy to make him stop. And as this being 1870, the remedy I'd like to see is my neighbour dangling by his neck. Or see him transported to the colonies for his crimes - though I'd like to hang onto his 12 year-old daughter, as she's good with the sheep and might make a fine wife. This being 1870, nothing wrong with taking a 12-year-old, who's good with sheep and bating her into a fine shape of a wife.

Or preferably, see my neighbour swing from that neck of his, kape his daughter and get me sheep back. Which court should I petition?

Sounds like Freemanism :P

FreudianSlippers

BornToKill wrote: »

If you say so, though I do not see the distinction.




Can you injunct someone to stop committing theft?

To me, equity is equality implies that in order to be equitable it must be equal.

Indricotherium

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sounds like you should take the module then tbh!

'What is equity?' is a complex question really. But, simply put, it is a set of principles which operates to mitigate the severity of common law. The principles can be applied to avoid situations where there would be injustice if the common law was strictly applied.

Thanks for this, I understand the concept of using equity to mitigate the common law, in situations where it would lead to silly penalties.

It's the application of it that I can't get my head around, as well as whether it is law or not, or just a discretionary option for the judge.

Procrastastudy

Indricotherium wrote: »

Thanks for this, I understand the concept of using equity to mitigate the common law, in situations where it would lead to silly penalties.

It's the application of it that I can't get my head around, as well as whether it is law or not, or just a discretionary option for the judge.

Firstly the maxims must be applied: You can probably google these
The decisions don't follow stare decisis in the traditional sense as they are 'discretionary' but thats not to say they are arbitrary. In all honesty it's possibly a jurisprudence module to explain the application in great detail as its not really an exact science.

chops018

I'll reiterate what the posters above have said in that it's just a set of legal principles that are there be put to use where the law would act harshly, don't let it confuse you too much.

I'll use a contract law example as there seems to be loads of "hypothetical" questions being put up here lately. There is a common law rule in contract law that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. So in theory A could sell B his house for €1, if common law rules are applied the court would see this as sufficient consideration and so a valid contract. However equity may intervene if this was due to a mistake or some other fact and it will set aside such a contract.

Don't let the area confuse you, they used to be separate courts but they are now fused together, I think this is where students get confused as they wonder how and when it can be used by a court.

Procrastastudy

chops018 wrote: »

I'll reiterate what the posters above have said in that it's just a set of legal principles that are there be put to use where the law would act harshly, don't let it confuse you too much.

I'll use a contract law example as there seems to be loads of "hypothetical" questions being put up here lately. There is a common law rule in contract law that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. So in theory A could sell B his house for €1, if common law rules are applied the court would see this as sufficient consideration and so a valid contract. However equity may intervene if this was due to a mistake or some other fact and it will set aside such a contract.

Don't let the area confuse you, they used to be separate courts but they are now fused together, I think this is where students get confused as they wonder how and when it can be used by a court.

Is rescission (sp?) an equitable remedy? I thought it was a common law remedy.

Farcear

Rescission is equitable as there is no automatic entitlement to it -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescission

Common law remedies are generally just damages.