Common Law And Equity
During the 12th and 13th century, a survey was conducted on tradition, custom and law under the common law system of England. This survey originally developed as court decisions. In England, the equity laws are developed after the creation of the common law. The analysis based on development of justice and is now used in the royal courts. This gives us the story of the 1066 when the England was attacked and concluded that there is no common law system, but the local court system. It is called the power of traditional dishes such as Shires and counties. The foundations of the common law have known in public as customary law. In this assignment, author will describe the development of the UK system of common Law and Equity. Arguments about judge’s role in the development of legal principles will be made.
During the course of this discussion we will be conducting a critical analysis of the ways in which Sexual Offences Act 2003 intends to cover all the different legal aspects and the ways in which the shortcomings that prevailed prior to this have been addressed.
During the course of this discussion we will be assessing the lives and works of three different individuals who with their relentless work and dedication towards their objective and motive that they intended to achieve pushed all conventional boundaries of determination, dedication, devotion and perseverance to new limits and summits. For this, three influential people and their works have been chosen that will be assessed during the different segments of this discussion.
The people chosen include Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Dorothy Day. The works of these three people that have been chosen include the autobiography of Malcolm X, Letter from Birmingham jail by Martin Luther King and the novel named Long Loneliness by Dorothy Day.
The Common Law :
During the conquest in 1066, William applied old legal customs in generalizing to the entire kingdom. It was the origin of the Common Law; the essential characteristic was that it was rooted deeply in Roman law to be based on the customs and practices from medieval traditions. These customs are still mainly oral; procedures are carried out by royal courts who judge case leaving significant room for interpretation. Gradually, the common law is insufficient and ineffective for a number of disputes.
The Equity :
Individuals appeal directly to the king, arguing the fairness of their problems. This procedure, called Equity, developed from the sixteenth century. It is characterized by the creation of special courts to make judgments royal and the development and writing of an important precedent.
Both systems, Common Law and Equity, will live together until 1875 when the distinction was abolished. The main consequence is the existence, even today, two major legal systems: the English system of common law and equity in use in the United States and Commonwealth countries and the continental system based on the Napoleonic Code in other European countries and in all their colonies.
Common Law And The Development Of Measures :
For years, these two structures of laws have the functioning of the equity side. In 1615, in each case, it was determined what should judge do in case of dispute. Over time, even after years, antipathy between the two systems was continued for centuries. In 1865, after the restoration of the system of English law, it was decided in the case of divergence between the common law and equity, justice must prevail. Form, the Supreme Court, the laws of justice (1873-1975) established principles for managing a hybrid legal system, equity, and the common law. Accordingly, the court is now not only the court or the court of equity; it is now a court with universal jurisdiction.
Pettit (2012) discussed some licenses can be generated by a trust company or confiscation of assets in an equitable ownership. In Binions v Evans , Lord Denning held that the buyers were forced by a licensing agreement between the former owners and occupants. They preferably gained confidence through performance without telling him. They have custody of Mrs. Evans and had these reasons for paying a reduced price. Scott (2009) noted that the constructive trust was one of the parents or guardians in the case of silver interest aunt a house available to buy what they could live the rest of their lives.
In the current case, the volatility of these points of agreement, another event is a progression that limited too far, may seem to follow. The decisions of the Court of Appeal in Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold WJ & Co , Habermann v Koehler , are a license for the purpose of a trust, where third unscrupulous was assigned, has agreed to be responsible for the conduct profits.
Some cases, as Jennings v Rice showed that the principle of the protection of property and confiscation of licenses by estoppels is to protect royalties and fair environment. The extent to which the law provides protection is an undercharged special circumstances adaptation. For example, in Maseru v Matharu there was a positive response to the law in the house for the rest of his life if the interest not transmitted. The opposition, dominated by equity growth, is the result of the decision of the House of Lords in Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien. If passed, there will be an emergence of new broadly balanced notification. This case lifted the right to prevent the transaction that can be found where there is a disproportionate impact on the co-signer or guarantor mortgages. The agreement amounts to a share correct value, the mortgagee should be avoided as a constructive opinion. The resurgence of the opinion, in a situation today, highlights the flexibility of equity. This statement has been sued by a number of cases. In Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge, the House of Lords common procedures for the application of the doctrine of recognition of this situation.
Judge’s Role In The Development Of Legal Principles :
Many of the decisions of a judge deviated from the principles. These are result of retreat, and it seems to make bad decisions. Langbein (2009) supports the idea of a bear case in point (which is clearly not a rule of law) is difficult to explain in terms of positivists. It provides support for the critical hammer. Principles to guide the decisions of judges, Dworkin said, are themselves part of the law.
According to Dworkin, it is the duty of a judge to know only one right answer to legal problems. The correct answer may be that both the corpus (body) is the best and try cases for their content. For example, a player interferes with the opponent away with a smile. Chess rules prohibit undue hardship by explicitly smile for the opponent but say nothing. The referee must decide whether it is justified or not. The correct answer is that chess is a form of psychological warfare or a purely analytical exercise, and the referee decided that the statement is more play in accordance with the Account and Profile.
Garoupa (2009) found that when the rules seem to extend to the unacceptable result, judges may derive the principles of justification for the adoption of rules for long distances. It is outside the scope of the exercise of discretion. It cannot be clearly evaluated for any activity related wisely and objectively, if the rules are. Instead, the powerful principles that courts apply the rules against another principle of fairness or justice or ethics and the decrease of it, though.
Judges’ accountability is to follow the legal rules and legal principles. The legal principles already exist and have been limited. It should be checked rights of the parties on the legislative and political consequences in this case. Based on the principle, the judge often found much of the cancellation of the decision, and to that extent, obviously made the wrong decision. Standards must be recognized, how to represent the rules should determine their decisions on content.
Books and Journals
- Langbein, J. H., Lerner, R. L., & Smith, B. P. (2009). History of the common law: The development of Anglo-American legal institutions.
- Pettit, Philip H. Equity and the Law of Trusts. Oxford University Press, 2012.
- Scott, Jacob. Codified Canons and the Common Law of Interpretation. Geo. LJ 98 (2009): 341.
- Klerman, Daniel. Jurisdictional competition and the evolution of the common law. The University of Chicago Law Review (2007): 1179-1226.
- MacEwen, Bruce, Milton C. Regan Jr, and Larry Ribstein. Law Firms, Ethics, and Equity Capital. Geo. J. Legal Ethics 21 (2008): 61.
- Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold  EWCA Civ 14.
- Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien  UKHL 6.
- Binions v Evans  EWCA Civ 6.
- Habermann v Koehler  73 P&CR 515.
- Matharu v Matharu ((1994) 26 H.L.R. 648, CA (Eng)).