There were two main problems with Williams’s law. The first one was that the only remedy available was monetary compensation. This could have been a problem for some as money may not solve their problems; they may prefer for example, an injunction but that wasn’t available.
The second problem was that if your case didn’t fit an existing writ you may not have been able to go ahead with your case. This was because when a case arose which was not covered by an existing writ a new one had to be created but this system was stopped by the end of the 13th century.
Both of these problems were major floors in the system.
Some started arguing that the common law system was too inflexible and some that ‘equity varied with the length of the Chancellor’s foot or in other words, it was unreliable and never the same. Gradually over years he gathered together a large body of principles which gave rise to equity. Equity is different to common law in that common law could be said to be inflexible as there is not much leeway with it whereas equity has a lot of flexibility.
The Earl of Oxford’s case was important because the outcome said that equity always prevails which is a rule we still stand by. This was an important outcome as if otherwise we might be standing by other rules now.
The effects of the Judicature Acts 1873-1875 were that after that the two systems where combined whereas before someone who wanted an equitable and common law remedy would have to use two courts. It is also significant as it could be said that they are both needed to hold up the legal system and by this outcome it is easier for them to work together.
The four most important equitable remedies are injunction (a court order to do or not to do something), specific performance (orders parties in an agreement to keep it), and rectification (to correct or rectify a mistake in a contract and finally rescission restores parties to original decision. Historically and today Equity is able to offer a wider variety of remedies.
Equity is said to be based on the conscience of the defendant, so an equitable remedy is always directed at a particular person. This person’s knowledge, state of mind and motives est. may be relevant to the decision of whether the remedy will be granted or not.
The maxims of equity must be satisfied before a person can claim an equitable remedy. They are there to ensure that the decision is morally fair. Some of these include ‘one who seeks equity must do equity’, this means that in order to receive equity the person who is claiming it must be fair themselves, for example snidely remarks would in most cases mean that their equity suits would almost certainly turn out badly. Another one is that ‘one who comes into equity must come with “clean hands” ‘, this means that it will not permit a party to profit from it’s own wrong for example if someone wants their tenant to leave they can’t have violated the tenants rights. Another common maxim of equity is that ‘between equal equities the law will prevail’, this means that equity doesn’t provide any remedies if the parties are equal and if neither has done any wrong.
Nowadays there is still a body of rules of equity which is different from common law rules, yet acts as an addition to it. Although they are used by the same courts the two branches of the law are separate. Where there is conflict equity still prevails.
