What is the difference between Common Law and Equity?

➢ Common law and equitable right has two different

function in that, common law establishes general rules
which provide certainty, while, equitable rights acts as a
check and balance of common law. This arises from the
strict application of the common law

• Common Law is a body of law based on precedent or court

decisions. Equity constitutes general principles and serves
as a supplement to Common Law.

➢ Equity, simply put, is a form of legal relief in the event

such relief cannot be found in the rules of common law.

➢ Equity is based on a judicial evaluation of fairness,

reason, good faith and justice. Common Law entails
applying the rules of common law to the issue before the
court.

What is the difference between common law

and equity?
The principal difference between common law and equity
lies in their origins and the remedies they offer. Common
law is established by judicial decisions and precedents,
while equity has developed as a separate system of law
to provide remedies when common law is insufficient.
Common law typically offers legal remedies like damages,
while equity provides equitable remedies, such as specific
performance or injunctions.

Can common law and equity coexist?

Yes, common law and equity can coexist, and they often
do so. The two have been combined into one body of law
in numerous jurisdictions. Judges have the discretion to
base their decisions on either common law or equity
grounds, as appropriate.

Which system of law takes precedence,

common law or equity?

In most legal systems, the common law takes precedence

over equity. However, there are always exceptions to the
rule, and it ultimately depends on the particular legal
system in operation. When there is a dispute between
common law and equity principles, equity principles may
take precedence. The courts have the final say on which
 legal system applies to a given case, and their decision is
grounded in the specifics of that case.

The relationship between equity and law

The relationship between equity and law is complex and
historically rooted. Equity refers to a system of justice that
developed in England alongside the common law. It operates
on principles of fairness and justice, often serving as a
supplement to traditional legal remedies. While both equity
and law aim to provide justice, they do so through different
mechanisms and principles.

Historical Development: Equity developed in

England to address shortcomings in the common law
system. Common law was rigid and sometimes failed to
provide adequate remedies in cases where strict
application would result in injustice. Equity developed to
provide flexible remedies and address these gaps.

Principles of Equity: Equity is based on principles such

as fairness, conscience, and flexibility. It allows courts to
consider the specific circumstances of a case and tailor
remedies accordingly. Equity operates on maxims like
"equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy"
and "he who comes to equity must come with clean
hands."
 Equitable Remedies: Equity offers a range of remedies
not available in common law courts, including
injunctions, specific performance, and equitable
estoppel. These remedies aim to prevent injustice and
ensure fairness between parties.

Interaction with Common Law: Equity and common

law coexist within the legal system. In most jurisdictions,
courts have the authority to apply both legal and
equitable principles to resolve disputes. However, in
cases of conflict, equity may prevail over common law.

Modern Application: While the formal distinction

between law and equity has diminished in many legal
systems, equitable principles continue to influence
modern legal practice. Courts often apply equitable
doctrines and remedies to achieve fair outcomes,
especially in areas such as contract law, property law, and
trusts.

Overall, equity and law are interconnected but distinct

concepts within the legal system. Equity serves as a
complement to law, providing flexibility and remedies to
ensure justice in cases where strict application of legal
rules may lead to unfairness.
“Equity had come not to destroy the law, but
to fulfil it.”

The statement "Equity had come not to destroy the law,

but to fulfil it" encapsulates the essence of the
relationship between equity and law. It reflects the
historical development of equity as a system of justice
that emerged alongside the common law to address its
shortcomings and ensure the fulfillment of justice.

Historical Context: In medieval England, the common

law system had its limitations, often resulting in rigid and
unjust outcomes. Equity emerged as a response to these
limitations, providing a flexible and fair alternative to
strict legal rules.

Supplementary Nature: Equity was never intended to

replace or undermine the law but rather to complement
it. It serves to fill the gaps in legal remedies and
principles, ensuring that justice is achieved in cases
where the application of strict legal rules would lead to
unfairness.

Fulfillment of Justice: By providing equitable remedies

and principles, equity aims to fulfill the broader goals of
justice and fairness within the legal system. It operates
on principles such as fairness, conscience, and individual
circumstances, all of which contribute to the fulfillment
of justice.

Harmonious Coexistence: Despite their differences,

equity and law coexist within the legal system, working
together to achieve just outcomes. Courts have the
authority to apply both legal and equitable principles,
depending on the nature of the case and the needs of
justice.

In essence, the statement highlights the symbiotic

relationship between equity and law, emphasizing that
equity serves to enhance and enrich the legal system
rather than undermine it. It underscores the importance
of flexibility, fairness, and justice in the administration of
law.

Equity comes to fulfill the common law not to

destroy it

Absolutely, that sentiment captures the essence of the

relationship between equity and the common law. Equity
emerged as a complementary system to the common
law, aiming to address its limitations and ensure justice is
served. Here's a breakdown of how equity fulfills rather
than destroys the common law:

Supplemental Nature: Equity operates alongside the

common law, offering additional principles and remedies
to ensure justice in situations where the common law
might fall short. Rather than replacing the common law,
equity provides a supplement to it.

Addressing Limitations: The common law, with its

reliance on precedent and strict rules, can sometimes
lead to unjust outcomes due to its inflexibility. Equity
steps in to address these limitations by focusing on
fairness, conscience, and individual circumstances.

Flexibility and Fairness: Equity introduces flexibility

into the legal system, allowing courts to tailor remedies
to fit the specific circumstances of each case. By doing so,
it ensures that justice is served in situations where the
application of strict legal rules might lead to unfairness.

Maintaining Harmony: While equity and the common

law may operate under different principles, they coexist
harmoniously within the legal system. Courts have the
authority to apply both legal and equitable principles as
needed, depending on the nature of the case and the
demands of justice.
In summary, the statement emphasizes that equity's
purpose is not to undermine or dismantle the common
law but rather to enhance it by filling gaps and addressing
its shortcomings. It underscores the symbiotic
relationship between equity and the common law, both
working together to ensure that justice is served
effectively and fairly.

short history of equity

Equity, in a legal and social context, has a rich and

complex history dating back to ancient times. Here's a
brief overview:

Ancient Roots: The concept of equity can be traced

back to ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia, Egypt,
Greece, and Rome. These societies had rudimentary
forms of equitable principles in their legal systems, often
intertwined with religious or moral codes.

Medieval England: Equity as a distinct legal system

began to emerge in medieval England when the common
law system, based on precedent and rigid rules, faced
criticism for its inflexibility. The Chancellor, initially a
cleric, became the dispenser of equitable justice,
providing remedies that the common law courts couldn't
offer.

Equity Courts: Over time, separate courts of equity

were established, with the Chancellor as their head.
These courts administered justice based on principles of
fairness, conscience, and natural justice, supplementing
the common law. They dealt with matters where the
common law was inadequate or where strict application
would lead to injustice.

Equitable Remedies: Equity introduced various

remedies such as injunctions, specific performance, and
trusts. These remedies aimed to provide flexible solutions
tailored to the unique circumstances of each case, rather
than mere monetary compensation.

Development in the United States: When English

colonists settled in America, they brought the common
law and equity with them. Equity played a significant role
in shaping American jurisprudence, with equity principles
being incorporated into state and federal legal systems.

Modern Equity: In contemporary legal systems, the

division between law and equity has largely been
abolished, with most jurisdictions having merged the two
systems. However, equitable principles continue to
influence areas such as contract law, property law, and
trusts.

Social Equity: Beyond its legal context, equity has also

come to signify fairness and justice in social, economic,
and political domains. It's a principle often invoked in
discussions about human rights, equality, and access to
resources and opportunities.

Throughout its history, equity has evolved in response to

changing social, economic, and legal landscapes, but its
fundamental aim of providing fairness and justice
remains central to its concept.