As a result of these problems many people became increasingly dissatisfied with the common law system. More and more people began to petition to the king as a “fountain of justice” for a more suitable remedy. Eventually though there were so many of these petitions being sent in that the king appointed his chancellor to deal with them. This meant now that whenever the common law was unable to offer a remedy that the chancellor would intervene. There were no ridged rules that the chancellor had to follow which made it different to the common law. The chancellor decided cases on what he thought was a fair or equitable” decision. One criticism for these decision is that it was far too flexible and that decisions were dependant on the length of the chancellors foot. Gradually the chancellor began to build up a large body of principles which he followed which was the beginning of what is now called equity. Equity is often simply though of as fairness it’s a decision which is meant to be fair to all parties. In equity there is no need for a writ, a petition or a bill is used to state a case. Equity also hasn’t got as many strict rules to make it too ridged, also equity is important because it offers a remedy which it feels is suitable to the case, instead of being restricted to just compensation.
As both equity and common law were running along side each other there came a few times were there were differences in decisions and the two courts became in conflict. One of these occasions was the earl of oxfords case in 1615. it was a very important cases because it decided that whenever equity and common law were in conflict equity will prevail, in this case the lease to convent garden had been bought by merton college, then the college sold the lease to the earl of oxford. With the use of an elizabethian statute the college reclaimed the land as the statute forbade the land to be sold. The college claimed the sale was void. According to common law the earl would have to give up the land as the statute said it was forbidden for it to be sold, however according to equity the college had acted unfairly and the earl would be allowed to keep the land. These to views totally contradicted one another so I was down to the king to decide what action should be taken. The king then ruled that in cases where common law and equity are in conflict equity will prevail.
Because of the kings ruling the two courts were never in conflict but they still ran as two separate courts. However, in 1873-1875 there were judicature acts, which now meant that the two courts were finally combined. Before this if both of the courts verdicts were wanted the litigants would have to take their case to two courts. The two different courts thought were fused as one but still ran separately. It was said that “the two streams have met now and run in the same channel but their waters do not mix” from then on all of the courts could administer both systems, and all courts could apply both common law and equitable remedies. When the two systems were in conflict the earl of oxfords case was still used and equity would prevail.
One of the main benefits of equity is that it could offer alternative remedies when compensation isn’t enough. As an example if some one had been trying for ages to buy their childhood home and had finally entered into an agreement to purchase it. Then they find out the owner had changed their mind. The purchaser would not want compensation but for the property to be sold to him and this could not happen with common law. The four most important equitable remedies were, injunction, which is to order someone not to do something e.g. if someone is taken to court for constantly disturbing the piece they may be ordered to keep quiet after a certain time. Specific performance, which compels a party to fulfil a previous agreement., e.g. if an agreement is met like the sale of a house the courts may not allow a party to back out. Rectification, which alters the words of a document if it is not seen as expressing the true intention of the party. Rescission, which restores both parties to the position they were in before the contract was made, which could be used if there is a problem with a contract. Equitable remedies are offered in addition to the common law remedy, a common law remedy is offered as a right and if it is not seen as adequate then an equitable remedy may be offered in addition.
However, these remedies may be refused if the claimant breaks one of the maxims of equity. The maxims are rules about who is entitled to equity as, just like common law equity bases decision on previous cases. The more common maxims are:
- He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
- Delay defeats equity
- He who seeks equity must do equity
For example, a company threatens to fire its employees if the don’t come off strike in ten day. Ten days later and they don’t come off strike and the company fires them. Because of the he who seeks equity must do equity maxim the employees would not receive an equitable remedy, as they did not treat the company fairly.
Equity is definitely a vital part of English law. It plays an important role in the courts today. Although common law is vital as it offers a great stability and certain predictability to the law equity must also be used. Equity offers a fair decision in the cases where common law doesn’t. Also if following common law judges may have to follow decisions they felt were wrong, this is not so with equity. Equity today has become a more fixed system then it was when it started so that it is more constant now. Which means it has the chance to offer people a fair remedy and decision but is not completely unreliable.