Understanding equity and trust law is almost impossible without a grasp of English history. In this note, we explore how common law and equity developed side by side, their continuing distinctions, and the core principles that guide equitable relief today.
The Development of Common Law and Equity
The Historical Background
The evolution of equity and trust law is deeply rooted in English history. In 1066, William I—known as William the Conqueror—led the Norman Conquest, seizing control of the entire kingdom. Before this pivotal event, England was marked by warring factions, and its territories were loosely organized. With the Normans in power, a unified legal system was introduced, forming the basis of what we now call common law. This new system applied uniformly across England and Wales, while Scotland maintained its own legal system until 1707.
The Emergence of Common Law
Henry II, one of England’s most influential monarchs, played a critical role in shaping the legal landscape. He established the King’s Bench, a royal court that handled disputes which might otherwise have come directly to the king. Through his reforms, a body of legal rights and obligations emerged that would characterize the common law system. The common law focused on strict rules and formal procedures—what is “inscribed in law.”
The Birth of Equity
However, the rigid application of common law often produced harsh results. Since common law concentrated on form rather than substance, many found its outcomes to be unfair. Citizens were granted the right to petition the king when they believed that the strict legal rules did not result in a just outcome. This need for fairness led to the development of equity, a system where judges (or the Lord Chancellor) could exercise discretion based on what was fair and just at the time.
In essence, while common law is built on rigid rules, equity is concerned with the spirit of justice. Equity steps in when legal rules produce unjust results, thereby offering a remedy when common law alone would impose hardship. Historical records—even from medieval times—show that people frequently complained about the inflexible nature of common law. Lawyers and litigants alike grumbled that the king’s court and later the Court of Chancery, led by the Lord Chancellor, often ignored precedents in favor of personal or political preferences.
For example, during medieval times, the common law courts became inundated with claims from people dissatisfied with the system. These complaints eventually spurred the development of a separate set of courts to administer equity. Although the Lord Chancellor’s decisions were sometimes criticized for being arbitrary or overly influenced by politics, equity ultimately evolved to address the common law’s shortcomings.
The Continuing Distinction Between Common Law and Equity
Two Separate Courts
For many centuries, England operated two distinct sets of courts:
- Common Law Courts: These courts focused on strict legal rules and provided remedies based primarily on monetary damages and property recovery.
- Equity Courts (Chancery): These courts offered flexible remedies such as injunctions, specific performance, and other discretionary orders based on fairness.
This separation existed because common law, by its nature, was rigid and formulaic. In contrast, equity sought to temper these rigidities by focusing on fairness and the true intention behind actions. Litigants were forced to decide whether their case should be heard in a common law court or in the Court of Chancery, which dealt with equitable claims.
The Judicature Act 1873–1876
The practical difficulties and confusion of having two separate courts led to significant reform. The Judicature Acts of 1873–1876 merged the common law and equity courts into a single unified court system. Section 5 of the Judicature Act is especially important; it stipulates that where there is a conflict between common law and equity, equity will prevail. This reform removed the necessity of choosing a particular court for a common law remedy and greatly simplified litigation.
Lord Maitland famously remarked that “equity varies with the length of the chancellor’s foot.” Although the two systems grew separately, they continued to influence each other. In his observation, Lord Maitland noted that even though common law and equity ran in parallel, “their waters never meet.” In other words, before the Judicature Acts, litigants were forced to choose a system for relief—and choosing incorrectly meant suffering the consequences. Charles Dickens, in his novel Bleak House, famously described the labyrinthine process of the legal system: “Equity sends questions to the law, law sends questions to equity, law finds it can’t do this, equity finds it can’t do that, neither can so much say it can do anything.” This quote captures the frustration and confusion that prevailed before the merging of the two systems.
Sources for this section include discussions on the Judicature Acts and historical perspectives from academic legal texts and reputable legal blogs.
The Impact of the Distinction Between Equity and Common Law
Different Claims, Different Remedies
The fundamental distinction between common law and equity is reflected in the remedies they provide. Under common law, the primary remedy is cash damages. If a party suffers a loss due to a breach of contract or negligence, the court awards monetary compensation to cover that loss. In contrast, equity offers remedies that go beyond mere financial compensation. Equitable remedies include:
- Injunctions: Orders to stop a party from doing something.
- Specific Performance: Orders to compel a party to perform a contractual obligation.
- Rectification and Rescission: Remedies that correct or set aside flawed agreements.
- Constructive or Resulting Trusts: Remedies that impose trust relationships where none formally exist.
- Subrogation and Accounts: Financial remedies that ensure fair allocation of losses or benefits.
A Real-World Example: Mr. Kamara and SLFA
Consider the following scenario:
Mr. Kamara enters into a contract with the SLFA to deliver five footballs each morning on game days in exchange for a payment of 3 million Leones. Under the terms of the contract, SLFA pays 1 million Leones in advance. Later, Mr. Kamara refuses to deliver the footballs. To remedy this breach, SLFA faces two potential issues:
- Monetary Loss: SLFA must recover the 1 million Leones it spent in advance and possibly the additional cost incurred to procure the footballs from another supplier. This claim is typically addressed by common law remedies (damages).
- Specific Performance: Alternatively, SLFA may seek an equitable remedy by asking the court to order Mr. Kamara to deliver the footballs as agreed. Specific performance is an equitable remedy that depends on the court’s discretion, as the court weighs fairness and the circumstances of the case.
If Mr. Kamara were insolvent, forcing him to perform the contract or repay money might be unconscionable. Similarly, if both parties made a mistake regarding the number of footballs to be delivered, equity might step in to rescind the contract. This example highlights how common law and equity can work together to provide comprehensive relief based on both legal rights and fairness.
A Comparative Table: Common Law vs. Equity
To further clarify the distinction between these two systems, consider the following table:
| Common Law | Equity |
|---|---|
| Examples of Claims: Breach of contract, Negligence, Fraud. | Examples of Claims: Breach of trust, Tracing property, Claiming property. |
| Remedies Available: Monetary compensation, property recovery, legal tracing. | Remedies Available: Specific performance, rectification, rescission, injunction, imposition of constructive or resulting trusts, subrogation, and equitable accounts. |
This table shows that while common law tends to offer a fixed remedy (usually monetary), equity provides flexible, discretionary relief tailored to the unique circumstances of each case.
Sources: Academic and legal summaries on contractual remedies and equitable relief are referenced in discussions available online (e.g., legal blogs and educational platforms).
Equity Acts In Personam
One of the core features of equitable jurisdiction is that it acts in personam—that is, directly against the person. Rather than transferring property or issuing a decree against a piece of land, equitable orders bind individuals personally. The court directs a person to act (or refrain from acting) in a certain way, thereby controlling the individual’s conduct.
This personal approach is especially important in preventing unconscionable behavior. For example, if a person has engaged in conduct that is deemed unfair or unjust, an equitable order may be issued to stop that behavior, ensuring that the person’s conscience is held to account. In this way, equity intervenes on a case-by-case basis, ensuring fairness and justice where common law might be overly rigid.
Sources for this section include discussions on equitable jurisdiction from reputable legal sources and textbooks on equity.
The Core Equitable Principles
At the heart of equity are several fundamental principles. Derived largely from Snell’s Equity & Trusts, these principles—often described as the “commandments” of equity—guide judges in delivering fair outcomes. Below, we detail the 12 core propositions along with one additional maxim.
1. Equity Will Not Suffer a Wrong to Be Without a Remedy (Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium)
This principle, often expressed in Latin as “ubi jus, ibi remedium,” means that every legal wrong must have a remedy. When common law falls short, equity steps in to provide a fair resolution. The goal is to ensure that no one suffers an injustice simply because the strict legal rules offer no relief.
2. Equity Follows the Law
While equity is known for its flexibility, it generally adheres to the rules of common law. However, it tempers strict legal outcomes by considering what is fair. Equity does not completely override the law but works alongside it to prevent harsh or unjust results.
3. Where There is Equal Equity, the Law Shall Prevail
In situations where two parties have equal claims in equity, the solution is determined by the established legal rules. When neither party has a clear advantage in equitable terms, the common law’s direction is followed.
4. Where the Equities Are Equal, the First in Time Shall Prevail
Timing is crucial in equity. When two parties have similar claims, the one who acquired their right first is given priority. This “first in time” principle ensures that equity respects the order in which rights were established.
5. Delay Defeats Equity
Equity requires prompt action. If a claimant waits too long to assert their rights, equity may refuse to provide relief. This principle, sometimes known as the doctrine of laches, prevents individuals from “sleeping on their rights” and then seeking equity after an unreasonable delay.
6. He Who Seeks Equity Must Do Equity
This maxim demands that anyone asking the court for equitable relief must themselves act fairly. In other words, a claimant must come to court with clean hands—if they have behaved unethically or unjustly, they cannot expect the court to help them.
7. Equality Is Equity
Equity is fundamentally about fairness and equality. This principle ensures that similar cases are treated alike and that no party is given an unfair advantage over another.
8. Equity Looks to the Intent Rather Than to the Form
Unlike common law, which focuses on the strict letter of the law, equity is more concerned with the true intention behind actions. If the form is imperfect but the intent is clear, equity will treat the matter as if the proper formalities had been followed.
9. Equity Looks on That as Done Which Ought to Have Been Done
Equity is willing to treat as completed an act that should have been completed, even if it wasn’t fully carried out. This principle ensures that a clear intention can be enforced even if there are minor technical defects.
10. Equity Imputes or Looks at an Intention in Order to Fulfill an Obligation
If there is a reasonable expectation that an obligation should be performed, equity will work to enforce that intention. This principle ensures that obligations are fulfilled, even if not all legal formalities are met.
11. Equity Acts In Personam
As discussed earlier, equitable relief is directed against individuals personally. The court orders a person to do or refrain from doing something, rather than transferring property rights directly.
12. Equity Will Not Permit a Statute or Common Law to Be Used as an Engine of Fraud
Equity prevents any party from exploiting legal rules to achieve an unjust or fraudulent result. Even if a statute or common law rule might technically allow a certain outcome, equity will intervene to prevent fraud.
Additional Maxim: Equity Will Not Assist a Volunteer
A volunteer is someone who receives a benefit without providing consideration. Equity traditionally will not perfect an imperfect gift for a volunteer because the recipient has given nothing of value in return. This maxim underscores that equitable relief is meant to remedy wrongs, not to perfect voluntary, incomplete transactions.
Sources for the equitable principles include Snell’s Equity & Trusts and academic discussions on equitable maxims from legal commentaries and textbooks.
The Impact of the Distinction Between Equity and Common Law on Modern Legal Claims
The distinction between equity and common law has far-reaching implications for modern legal claims. Although many of us now see these as parts of one unified legal system, the roots of their differences remain influential.
Remedies for Different Types of Claims
Common Law Remedies:
When a claimant seeks redress for a breach of contract or negligence, the typical remedy is monetary damages. These remedies are clear-cut and follow established rules of calculation.Equitable Remedies:
Equitable relief, however, is more flexible. For example, if a party fails to perform under a contract, a claimant might ask for specific performance—an order requiring the party to fulfill their contractual obligation. Alternatively, the court might grant an injunction to prevent unfair behavior. Such remedies are discretionary, meaning the court considers the particular circumstances and the conscience of the parties before deciding.
A Practical Example: Mr. Kamara and the Football Contract
Consider a real-world scenario:
Mr. Kamara enters a contract with the SLFA to deliver five footballs each morning on game days for a payment of 3 million Leones. As part of the contract, SLFA pays 1 million Leones in advance. If Mr. Kamara later refuses to deliver the footballs, the injured party (SLFA) faces two issues:
- Monetary Loss: They need to recover the 1 million Leones and any additional costs incurred by buying footballs from another supplier. This claim would typically be handled under common law through damages.
- Specific Performance: Alternatively, SLFA might seek an equitable order forcing Mr. Kamara to perform his contractual obligation. Specific performance is granted only when it is fair and just to compel the contract’s fulfillment.
If Mr. Kamara were insolvent or if both parties had made a mutual mistake about the terms, the court might find it unconscionable to force specific performance. In such cases, equity intervenes to tailor a remedy that best reflects the true intentions and fairness of the situation.
The Continuing Legacy of Equity: Why It Matters Today
Even in our modern legal system, the legacy of equity is evident. Despite the merger of common law and equitable courts under the Judicature Acts, the principles of equity remain fundamental in shaping fair outcomes. When strict adherence to statutory rules would produce an unjust result, courts will invoke equitable doctrines to ensure justice prevails.
For students and practitioners of law, understanding these principles is crucial. Not only do they provide insight into historical legal development, but they also influence contemporary case law and the strategies used in litigation. Whether you are preparing for exams or practicing law, a solid grasp of both common law and equity—and the ways in which they interact—will enhance your ability to analyze and resolve complex legal issues.
How Equity Impacts Case Strategy
Litigants must consider both legal and equitable remedies when pursuing a claim. For example, when drafting a contract, it is essential to understand that while common law will enforce the terms rigidly, equity may offer more flexible relief if unforeseen circumstances arise. This dual approach can sometimes lead to conflicting interests, but the principle that “equity prevails” in cases of conflict ensures that fairness is ultimately achieved.
Furthermore, the notion that equity acts in personam means that judges are empowered to make orders that directly bind individuals, ensuring that the conduct of the parties is held to ethical standards. This focus on personal responsibility and fairness is one of the enduring strengths of equity, making it an indispensable part of the legal landscape.
Summary of Key Points
To summarize the lecture note in a few core sections:
Historical Development:
- The Norman Conquest introduced a unified legal system known as common law.
- Henry II’s reforms and the creation of the King’s Bench established foundational legal rights and obligations.
- Equity emerged as a means of ensuring fairness when strict common law produced unjust results.
Distinct Court Systems:
- Until the Judicature Acts (1873–1876), common law and equity were administered in separate courts.
- The Judicature Acts merged these systems, with equity prevailing when conflicts arose.
- Despite the merger, the distinctions in remedies and principles remain evident.
Impact on Remedies:
- Common law primarily offers monetary damages.
- Equity provides flexible remedies such as specific performance, injunctions, and trust-related orders.
- Real-world examples, such as the case of Mr. Kamara, illustrate how these different remedies operate.
Equity Acts In Personam:
- Equitable orders bind individuals personally, ensuring that people act fairly and according to conscience.
- This personal approach prevents unconscionable behavior and tailors remedies to individual cases.
Core Equitable Principles:
- There are 12 fundamental maxims of equity that guide judges, including “ubi jus, ibi remedium,” “equity follows the law,” and “delay defeats equity.”
- An additional important maxim is that equity will not assist a volunteer—meaning that a person who receives a benefit without giving anything in return cannot rely on equity to perfect an incomplete gift.
Modern Relevance:
- Understanding the interplay between common law and equity is essential for resolving modern disputes.
- The historical evolution and continuing influence of equitable principles ensure that justice remains flexible and responsive to individual cases.
Objective Questions
In what year did the Norman Conquest take place?
A. 1066
B. 1215
C. 1492
D. 1100Which monarch’s conquest introduced a unified legal system (common law) in England?
A. Henry II
B. William I (the Conqueror)
C. Edward I
D. Richard the LionheartWhat key institution did Henry II establish that contributed to the development of common law?
A. The Court of Chancery
B. The King’s Bench
C. The House of Lords
D. The Privy CouncilCommon law is primarily characterized by which type of legal remedy?
A. Specific performance
B. Monetary damages
C. Injunctions
D. Declaratory judgmentsEquity provides which type of remedy that distinguishes it from common law?
A. Solely monetary compensation
B. Equitable remedies such as injunctions and specific performance
C. Punitive damages
D. Administrative ordersWhat was the main purpose of the Judicature Acts of 1873–1876?
A. To separate common law and equity further
B. To merge common law and equity courts into a unified system
C. To abolish equity entirely
D. To establish a criminal court systemAccording to Section 5 of the Judicature Act, when common law and equity conflict, which prevails?
A. Common law
B. Statutory law
C. Equity
D. Customary lawWhat does the Latin phrase “ubi jus, ibi remedium” mean?
A. Where there is need, there is a remedy
B. Where there is law, there is justice
C. Where there is a right, there is a remedy
D. Where there is money, there is powerWhich equitable maxim states that if two parties have equal rights, the one who acquired the right first will prevail?
A. Equity follows the law
B. Where the equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail
C. Delay defeats equity
D. He who seeks equity must do equityWhat is the doctrine called that prevents a claimant from seeking equitable relief after an unreasonable delay?
A. Laches
B. Res judicata
C. Estoppel
D. WaiverEquity enforces its orders “in personam.” What does this mean?
A. It binds a piece of property
B. It binds the individual personally
C. It creates a statutory right
D. It only applies to corporationsWhat does the maxim “he who seeks equity must do equity” require from a claimant?
A. The claimant must provide valuable consideration
B. The claimant must act fairly and equitably
C. The claimant must follow the strict letter of the law
D. The claimant must demonstrate financial hardshipWhich principle states that similar cases should be treated equally?
A. Equality is equity
B. Equity follows the law
C. Where equities are equal, the law shall prevail
D. Delay defeats equityWhat does the maxim “equity looks to the intent rather than to the form” imply?
A. Courts disregard intention completely
B. Courts focus solely on legal form
C. Courts consider the true intention behind an action over its technical appearance
D. Courts enforce formalities without exceptionWhich of the following is one of the recommended texts for studying equity and trusts mentioned in the lecture note?
A. Blackstone’s Commentaries
B. Snell’s Equity & Trusts
C. Halsbury’s Laws
D. Chitty on Contracts
SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Historical Foundations:
Discuss the historical development of common law and equity in England. In your answer, explain how the Norman Conquest of 1066 and Henry II’s reforms (including the establishment of the King’s Bench) contributed to the emergence of common law, and describe why and how equity developed as a system to remedy the shortcomings of common law.The Evolution of Two Legal Systems:
Explain how the courts of common law and equity operated as separate entities before the Judicature Acts. Describe the main differences in their approaches and remedies, and analyze how these differences affected litigants.Impact of the Judicature Acts (1873–1876):
Critically evaluate the impact of the Judicature Acts on the administration of justice in England. How did these acts merge the common law and equity courts, and what are the practical implications of the rule that “equity prevails” in cases of conflict?Comparative Remedies:
Compare and contrast the remedies available under common law versus those provided by equity. Use the example of Mr. Kamara’s contractual dispute (regarding the football delivery and payment) to illustrate how damages and specific performance operate in practice.Equity Acts In Personam:
Discuss the significance of the principle that “equity acts in personam.” How does this approach differ from the traditional legal remedies based on property, and what is its importance in ensuring fairness in modern litigation?Core Equitable Maxims:
Outline the 12 fundamental equitable principles (maxims) discussed in the lecture note. Choose at least three maxims (e.g., “ubi jus, ibi remedium,” “he who seeks equity must do equity,” “equity looks to the intent rather than the form”) and explain with examples how each guides a court in achieving a fair outcome.Interplay Between Common Law and Equity:
Analyze how the historical separation—and later merging—of common law and equity influences modern trust law. What challenges and benefits arise from this interplay, and how do contemporary courts balance strict legal rules with equitable principles?Intent Versus Form:
Equity is said to focus on the true intention of the parties rather than the strict form of legal transactions. Discuss this principle in detail, providing examples from trust law and contractual disputes where the intention of the donor or party played a critical role in the court’s decision.Equity’s Remedy for Delays:
Explain the principle “delay defeats equity” (laches). Discuss why timeliness is essential in equitable claims and how this maxim protects defendants from unfair claims due to prolonged inaction. Provide examples of cases where delay impacted the outcome.Modern Relevance of Equity:
Reflect on the modern impact of the historical development of equity. How do the principles of equity continue to shape the way courts handle disputes today, particularly in areas involving trusts and contractual obligations? Discuss the importance of equitable doctrines in achieving justice in complex cases.
Sample Answer: Historical Foundations of Common Law and Equity
The development of common law and equity in England is inseparable from the country’s turbulent history. The roots of these legal systems trace back to the Norman Conquest of 1066, which laid the foundation for a unified legal framework, and to the subsequent reforms under Henry II, which further shaped the common law. Simultaneously, the inherent rigidity of the early legal system prompted the evolution of equity as a mechanism to ensure fairness.
Norman Conquest and the Birth of Common Law
In 1066, William I, known as William the Conqueror, invaded England and established Norman rule over the entire kingdom. This conquest was not merely a military victory; it also marked the imposition of a new legal order across England and Wales. Prior to this event, local customs and fragmented laws governed different regions. With the Normans in control, a unified system of laws emerged—later known as common law. This new system relied on precedents and was uniformly administered, ensuring that legal principles were consistent throughout the kingdom.
The Normans introduced a centralized method of law enforcement that replaced the diverse, localized customs of the Anglo-Saxon period. As a result, the common law developed as a body of unwritten rules based on customs, judicial decisions, and royal decrees. These rules emphasized consistency, predictability, and the preservation of royal authority, establishing a framework that would govern property rights, contracts, and other civil matters.
Henry II’s Reforms and the Establishment of the King’s Bench
The evolution of common law was significantly advanced by the reforms of Henry II in the 12th century. Henry II recognized the need to create a more systematic and reliable method for resolving disputes. To achieve this, he established the King’s Bench—a court that functioned as the royal court of justice. This court not only consolidated legal authority under the crown but also developed the doctrine of judicial precedent, a cornerstone of common law.
By introducing itinerant justices who traveled the country, Henry II ensured that the royal law reached every corner of England. This approach helped standardize legal procedures and decisions, further strengthening the common law system. The King’s Bench handled a broad range of cases, thereby contributing to a robust legal framework that emphasized the written record of judicial decisions. In this way, Henry II’s reforms institutionalized the practice of common law, ensuring its consistent application across the realm.
The Emergence of Equity
While the common law system established a uniform legal order, it was inherently rigid and focused on form over substance. Common law rules often produced harsh or unjust outcomes because they failed to account for the nuances of individual cases. Litigants found that strict adherence to precedent sometimes led to results that were unfair or contrary to the spirit of justice.
Recognizing these shortcomings, the people and the legal community began to demand a system that could temper the rigidity of common law. Citizens were granted the right to petition the king when common law decisions were seen as unjust. This demand for fairness led to the development of equity. Unlike common law, which is based on fixed rules, equity is concerned with achieving justice by considering the actual circumstances and intentions of the parties involved.
The Court of Chancery emerged as the forum for equitable relief. In these courts, the Lord Chancellor exercised discretion to fashion remedies that would not have been available under common law. Equity was guided by principles such as fairness, conscience, and the notion that “where there is a right, there must be a remedy” (ubi jus, ibi remedium). This approach allowed equity to provide flexible relief—such as injunctions, specific performance, and the imposition of trusts—in cases where common law’s strict rules would have failed to deliver a just outcome.
Why Equity Developed
The drive to create equity arose from the need to alleviate the harshness and inflexibility of common law. While common law provided clear, written rules, it often neglected the underlying substance of a dispute. For example, in cases involving trusts or contractual obligations, the rigid application of common law might result in a remedy that, although legally correct, left one party without any substantive relief. Equity filled this gap by considering factors like the parties’ intentions and the overall fairness of a decision.
Equity thus served as a counterbalance to the common law. It intervened in situations where strict adherence to legal formalities would result in injustice. By focusing on fairness and the spirit of the law, equity ensured that the legal system remained flexible and capable of addressing the real-world complexities of human relationships.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the historical development of common law and equity in England is a story of evolution driven by necessity. The Norman Conquest introduced a unified legal system, while Henry II’s reforms, especially the establishment of the King’s Bench, laid the groundwork for the development of common law. However, the rigid and sometimes harsh nature of common law led to widespread calls for a more compassionate system. The emergence of equity, with its focus on fairness and flexibility, provided that essential remedy. Today, the interplay between common law and equity continues to shape modern legal practice, ensuring that the law remains just and responsive to individual circumstances.
How I Answered This Question: A Step-by-Step Guide
Introduction with Context:
I started by setting the stage with a clear thesis that ties the historical events (the Norman Conquest and Henry II’s reforms) to the evolution of both common law and equity. I emphasized that understanding this history is key to grasping modern legal principles.Historical Development of Common Law:
- Norman Conquest (1066): I explained how William I’s conquest introduced a unified legal system, replacing local customs with a centralized common law.
- Henry II’s Reforms: I detailed how Henry II established the King’s Bench and used itinerant justices to standardize the law. I noted that these reforms laid the foundation for judicial precedent.
Emergence of Equity:
I discussed the limitations of common law, highlighting its rigidity and the harsh outcomes that sometimes resulted. I explained that the demand for fairness led to the development of equity, which allowed courts to grant flexible remedies based on the spirit of justice rather than strict legal form.Why Equity Developed:
I emphasized that equity was not created to replace common law but to complement it. I mentioned specific equitable principles like “ubi jus, ibi remedium” and described the role of the Court of Chancery in providing relief where common law failed.Conclusion:
I wrapped up the answer by summarizing the key points and reinforcing the idea that the historical evolution of these systems is crucial for understanding how modern law balances strict rules with fairness.Active Tone and Clarity:
Throughout the answer, I used active verbs (e.g., “introduced,” “established,” “filled the gap”) and clear language. I maintained a logical flow, ensuring that each paragraph built upon the previous one to create a comprehensive narrative.
By following this structure and focusing on clear, active explanations, you can develop an in-depth answer that not only addresses the essay question but also demonstrates your understanding of the historical and theoretical underpinnings of common law and equity.
Correct Answers
- A (1066)
- B (William I (the Conqueror))
- B (The King’s Bench)
- B (Monetary damages)
- B (Equitable remedies such as injunctions and specific performance)
- B (To merge common law and equity courts into a unified system)
- C (Equity)
- C (Where there is a right, there is a remedy)
- B (Where the equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail)
- A (Laches)
- B (It binds the individual personally)
- B (The claimant must act fairly and equitably)
- A (Equality is equity)
- C (Courts consider the true intention behind an action over its technical appearance)
- B (Snell’s Equity & Trusts)
Sources
- Snell’s Equity & Trusts – Provides a foundational discussion on equitable maxims and trust principles.
- Equity & the Law of Trust – Philip & Pettit – Explores the theoretical underpinnings of equity in trust law.
- Oxford Reference – Offers historical context on the Norman Conquest, common law, and the merging of equity and common law.
- Digestible Notes and CliffsNotes – Summarize the principles behind equity and the impact of the Judicature Act.
- S.S. KABBA, OCTOBER 2022 – Referenced in the lecture note for various points on the development and distinctions of common law and equity.
- Learning the Law – Professor Gladmin Williams, 4th Edition – Cited in the lecture note regarding the inter-flux of the two systems.
- Dickens’ Bleak House – A literary reference capturing the frustrations with the old system.
Recommended Texts:
• Snell’s Equity & Trusts
• Equity & the Law of Trust – Philip & Pettit
Reference:
S.S KABBA, OCTOBER 2022
EQUITY & TRUST – LECTURE 1 – 28/10/22
LECTURER: JUSTICE MAMMI
TOPIC: INTRODUCTION