The Development of Common Law and Equity
1.0 Introduction
I have been asked to write a report on the development of common law
and equity. Common law refers to the law created by judges that was
historically significant but has been since superseded by parliament.
It is in parallel with equity which refers to the source of law
created by the Lord Chancellor which was designed to supplement the
common law and allow people the opportunity to avoid the inherent
problems. Equity is ‘the gloss on the common law’. The following
report will go through step by step on how common law and equity have
developed between the years 1066 to our present day.
2.0 Development of Common Law
In very early times- before King Alfred, there was no system of
justice which applied to the whole of the country. The population was
not ruled by a single monarch, transport and communications were
available to very few and no law books were available, however, the
population was very small at this time, therefore meaning it was not
required as much as nowadays.
In 1066, William I made changes to the old system, introducing the
Curia Regis and appointing judges-common law was first introduced
during this time. The kings representatives were sent throughout the
land to check local administration and hear local cases. Cases were
interpreted and customised to suit the whole country. After
introducing the Curia Regis William ordered all his disputes to be
heard in a court situated in Westminster using only his version of the
law. This caused a problem because it meant that there was only one
court situated in the South of England. This ...
... middle of paper ...
...endant to allow the plaintiff to enter his or her premises and
take away documents or materials that may be relevant to the case.
This is vulnerable in the case of equity as it prevents the defendants
destroying what may be very valuable evidence.
This is highlighted in the case of Anton Pillars KG v Manufacturing
Process Ltd 1976. Even though many remedies have been through equity
the Courts are prepared to extend these remedies. The principle that
they are all discretionary still remains
9.0 Conclusion
Equity has already seen many changes and new areas of law have been
developed, however equity and its laws are constantly reviewed and new
areas are still being developed. Extensions of equity are constantly
being brought before the attention of the House of Lords, enabling
equity to continue to grow.
The “writ of Henry I on local courts” is an administrative command issued around 1108 by Henry I, King of England during the Anglo-Norman period from 1100 till 1135. Henry addresses the writ to two individuals specifically in the country of Worcestershire, Samson and Urse of Abbetot, as well as to the barons of Worcestershire generally. Samson and Urse both held titles of prestige and power in Worcestershire County as the bishop and sheriff respectively at the time. The writ generally concerns the court systems, both royal and local, and more specifically delineates the jurisdictional spheres to be enjoyed by the particular courts concerning land disputes. Technically, the writ alludes to four distinct courts: the King’s Court, the Lord’s Court, and the County (or Shire) Court and the Hundred Court. Moreover, it refers to two types of people within Anglo-Norman society: the barons, or lords, and the vassals, or those who held the lands of, and at the pleasures of, the barons.
Common Law vs. Political Law vs. Scientific Law Americans are no longer aware that there are two kinds of legal systems, political and scientific. America was founded on principles of scientific law. But these principles have now been submerged in today's legal system. What is taught today as law is political law. To understand the difference between a scientific legal system and a political one, it is necessary to know that scientific law developed in the absence of any legislature or Congress or Parliament whatever.
One of the main differences between criminal cases and civil cases is that they are held in different courts, this is because there is a significant distinction between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. Crimes are considered to be a type of wrongdoing, however civil wrongs tend to have only an impact on the parties involved in the case. For example: a breach of contract. Where criminal wrongs tend to have. impact on society itself.
Where does the heart of the legal problem lie in the late eighteenth to early nineteenth century? The legal system of the time was built on English Common Law. This Common Law used earlier legal precedents combined with the facts of a case in order to determine guilt or innocence. However, this system left a great amount of room for interpretation that lawyers of the time were able to use to their advantage. By the early nineteenth century, lawyers ...
Option 4: Both King and Rawls touch on the nature of just and unjust law, while King goes a step further and argues about responding to unjust law. Write an essay about how individuals do or do not respond to unjust law.
In the United States, true equality has never existed. From the Declaration of Independence to modern times, the U.S. legal system has failed in any attempt at equality. The ideology of "all [men] are equal but some [men] are more equal than others" has been present throughout the history of the U.S. (Orwell). Inequality has always existed in the United States legal system and continues to exist today; however, the inequality presently in the system is not as blatant as what it once was, but the system has come to depend on inequality. Since the very beginning of a legal system in the United States, there has been inequality.
Legal codes in the judicial system is the key distinction between the civil law and common law tradition. It is the supreme source of justice in a society and is meant to provide the common good for a society. Whether or not a country is governed by a civil or common law code greatly influences the role of the judiciary system. Including the presence and role of judicial review. Given these points, civil law clashes with the theory of individualism, therefore this tradition could not work in the American system. Civil law is markedly inflexible because it is difficult to update common law to change with the times. Until relevant criminal charges are laid out or relevant civil action is initiated, there is not an opportunity for these laws and precedents to be changed.
In the United States, true equality has never existed. From the Declaration of Independence to modern times, the US legal system has failed at any attempt at equality. ‘...all men are created equal...’ may be what the Declaration says, but ‘some men are more equal than others’ is how the legal system really interprets that phrase. The actual reality of the Declaration of Independence is that all free, white, landowning men are created equal. Therefore, inequality has always existed in the united States’ legal system and continues to exist today; however, the inequality presently in the system is not as blatant as what it once was. Slavery continued in the United States for nearly ninety years after the Declaration, and African Americans still feel the sting of inequality today.
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
However, this system of laws changed much throughout the century. The Chancery became merely a joke for there you could not present evidence during trials and Parliament came to view it as necessary for matters of will and divorce to be referred to new civil courts instead of the church. In 1873 the 3 common law courts and the Chancery were combined to make the Supreme Court
There are four different types of Justice Systems, Distributive and Retributive are the two systems that are very different yet alike. Both of these systems serve different purposes whether they have a positive or negative effect. Distributive is all about equality hoping to balance everything without causing problems. Retributive is about punishing those who have disobeyed in exchange for a positive outcome. Equality and punishment are main principles in the system but how diverse they are and the results they provide are what is intriguing.
Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial or not The term ‘Judicial Precedent’ has at least two meanings, one of which is the process where Judges will follow the decisions of previously decided cases, the other is what is known as an ‘Original Precedent’ that is a case that creates and applies a new rule. Precedents are to be found in Law Reports and are divided up into ‘Binding’ and ‘Persuasive’.
The intention of this essay is to explain the process of law reform within the English legal system. The way in which the activity of parliament and that of the judiciary affects the way in which laws are reformed in the UK will be also discussed. The common law system in the UK means that the UK's primary legal principles have been developed by the judiciary rather than by parliament. However, as parliamentary sovereignty is an important key principle of the UK constitution parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK. Parliament can create, change or repeal any law and generally speaking the judiciary cannot overrule legislation that has been passed by parliament.
INTRODUCTION: Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus, the real role of a judge in any legal system continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many.
Law is a tool in society as it helps to maintain social control, promoting social justice. The way law functions in society and its social institution provide a mechanism for solutions. There are many different theories of the function of law in relation to society in considering the insight they bring to different socio-legal and criminological problems. In the discussion of law’s role in social theory, Leon Petrażycki and Eugen Ehrlich share similar beliefs in the jurisprudence of society. They focused their work on the experience of individuals in establishing meaning in their legal relations with others based on the question of what it means to be a participant in law. Jürgen Habermas presents a relationship between law and morality. From a certain standpoint, law is a key steering mechanism in society as it plays an educational role in promoting conducts, a mean of communication and it