Equity is frequently referred to as a supplement to the common law. Cruzon defines Equity as a system of law developed by the court of chancery in parallel with the common law. It was designed to complement it, providing remedies for situations that were unavailable at Law. Because of this, Equity provided a dimension of flexibility and justice that was often times lacking because of the common law’s rigidity. This rigidity stems from the fact that, while courts sometimes altered their jurisdictions and procedures, the fundamental premises and noticeable forms of the common law went largely unchanged between the 13th and 19th centuries.
The common law was regarded as a birthright for all Englishmen; however, as the Crown continued to impose new jurisdictions, many statues sought to protect the peoples’ right to due process. In 1215 the Magna Carta was issued which sought to protect a free man’s right to life, liberty, and property except by the due process of the law. These statutes meant to limit the power of the crown, the very power that had introduced the common law as an alternative to the previous localized form of justice, and characterized a shift in the common law. Yet, due process legislation could only be invoked where the common law was considered to be deficient, and petitions were sent to the king, seeking his grace, when this was thought to be the case. Gradually the number of these petitions increased so much that they had to be reserved for special councils of the parliament, and as they continued to increase, only the most significant petitions were reserved for the parliament. The rest, mainly private suits, were passed on to individual councilors such as the chancellor, admiral, or marshal. These councilors grew in importance as petitioners began approach the appropriate individual directly. Out of the councilors’ arrangements for dealing with these cases, along with their added significance, developed several distinct courts. The most important of these was that of the chancellor as it developed its own jurisprudence.
The Chancery began as the royal secretariat. Originally it was a department where royal writs and charters were drawn and sealed. Much of the chancellor’s later power stemmed from the fact that he had custody of the great seal of England, which was used to authenticate these documents. Because the writs originated from thi...
... middle of paper ...
... In the 19th century radical reforms of the judicial system attacked the practical flaws of the chancery. In 1813 the supreme power of the chancellor was checked by the appointment of a vice-chancellor. Later, this effort was continued by increasing the power of the Master of the Rolls, and the abolition of many of the offices in the court. By reducing the spread of the court and once again streamlining business, hopes were for joining the two courts and, once and for all, eliminating the rivalry between them. After 500 years, however, the chancery still left a bad taste in peoples’ mouths, and under Victorian legislation, the power of the supreme courts was increased to administer the law and equity: the chancery and the common law courts were abolished, forever ending the age old dispute between the two.
While the chancery was abolished, equity has taken on a broader meaning and still survives today in England and the US. It is that approach to justice giving more precedent to particular facts of a case. Equity is important because it gave increasing protection to the individual, and represented a breaking away from the medieval notion of the all-powerful feudal lord.
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.
In conclusion, "To strive for justice, one must be a person of principles. There is no single principle that one can use to achieve justice in the resolution of legal disputes." This is true because one must use a wide array of principles that come from moral and legal perspectives in order to gain a resolution. Unfortunately society has deemed it necessary to incorporate social stratification into some of these principles. The law tends to have more leniencies to those who have higher positions in society. With as many classes as our society today, it is impossible to find a jury of peers. Each person has their own idea of cultural norms, legal and moral principles, and a socio-class in which they belong to. Therefore, I contend that social stratification, whether it is between races, or economical levels, will always have some role in legal decisions.
This essay will hold a discussion regarding two main principles: fairness and justice. In particular, to what extent Australian legal system is based on fairness and justice?
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.
During this time, the Magna Carta was written and signed. This limited the power of the king and he had to earn approval by the lords before he could make a decision. It also made it so a law can only be passed if it doesn’t go against the Magna Carta. It also implies religion by helping with giving the Church full rights that allows
Justice is a vital part of the American Court System and influenced and continues to influence since the beginning of American history. Structure and organization is an important factor that creates our outstanding court systems. The State and U.S Constitutions are not the only foundation of the court systems, but also that people that work hard to thrive for justice. Today, justice and equality causes the court systems to change and adapt to continue protecting the rights of the people.
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.
The status of the criminal justice system in Europe during the 1700s was the product of long tradition of aristocracy. An aristocracy government is one in which land is owned by particular families and is passed down through the generations of a family line. The monarch of the region grants titles and powers to the privileged classes, who in return keep order within their land and swear loyalty to the monarch. Property and power in an aristocracy were the privileges of birth alone and being merit was simply irrelevant. Their lives circled around maintaining, while attempting to expand, their wealth and power. Historically, as a higher class among others, aristocrats were known to be negligent towards the poor. To where they were prone to appoint
-Equity: seen over by the Chancery Court; designed to give relief from strict decisions made by the common law
An issue that has remained debatable since the Jackson litigation was what ought to be the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution: parliamentary sovereignty or the rule of law. This essay sets out to consider the reputedly irreconcilable tension between the two fundamental constitutional principles by analysing the extensive obiter dicta in Jackson and relating it to judicial review which upholds the rule of law. The contention of this essay is that despite the courts' deferential attitude towards the sovereignty of the laws of Parliament, the rule of law may potentially gain dominance and surpass parliamentary sovereignty to become the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution.
Equity means giving every individual what he or she merits or, in more conventional terms, giving every individual his or her due. Equity and reasonableness are nearly related terms that are frequently today utilized conversely. There have, be that as it may, additionally been more unmistakable understandings of the two terms. While equity normally has been utilized with reference to a standard of rightness, decency frequently has been utilized as to a capacity to judge without reference to one 's emotions or intrigues; reasonableness has additionally been utilized to allude to the capacity to make judgments that are not excessively general but rather that are concrete and particular to a specific case. Regardless, an idea of desert is significant to both equity and decency. Case in point, are requesting what they think they merit when they are requesting that they be treated with equity and decency. At the point when individuals contrast over what they accept ought to be given, or when choices must be
Part of the grounds for arguing in favor of the common law system over the codified system is its characteristically equitable qualities. Since antecedents are pursued in all cases, everyone gets the same treatment. This same legal procedure is administered to everyone in spite of their position or creed. Therefore, this system of going by antecedents which had hitherto been set usually leads to equity and fairness. This system of law also has the advantage over the codified system by offering protection to persons via the law of tort.
Equity speaks to fairness as people’s ability to access things and when talking fairly it is the ability to access things fairly. In other words, if one group has access say to education, then all groups should have access to the same education, the same quality of education (Kranich, 2005).
Social justice historic Marxist classical writers believe that social justice is a historical category , historic , rather than an eternal category ; concept of a fair society is the relationship between the social production of the decision, the different ways in which social production fair concept is different. Engels pointed out : Fair is not a priori decide what economic relations , on the contrary, it is determined by economic relations , it is standard on fair economic relations with the changes and change. [1] (P310) " the concept of equality , regardless of the form of the emergence of the bourgeoisie , or in the form of the proletariat, is itself a product of history , the formation of this concept requires a certain historical ties , and this species Youyi past historical relationship itself is premised on a long history , so this is what the concept of equality , it is not eternal truth . "[2] P117) Engels said that the fair " is always just the existing economic relations or to reflect its conservative side, or reflect the ideas of revolutionary aspects of the performance of sacred Greeks and Romans considered fair view of slavery was fair ; . 1789 fair view of the assets by the abolition of the feudal system , because it is said that it is unfair. in the Prussian Junker seems that even the poor area of law is also fair eternal destruction , so the idea is not only about the eternal fair result due to time and change, even vary . " [1] (P310) Marx had used rhetorical tone, said , " : What is a" fair distribution "mean ? Is asset allocation were not assert today was " fair " it? Does it in fact is not in the mode of production on the basis of today the only " fair " distribution of it? Is economic relations is to regul...
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...