We can all agree that equity and common law have complex historical and functional distinctions.
By examining their origins, evolution, and key differences, we can gain clarity on how these two legal frameworks diverged yet still interact in contemporary law.
This article will trace equity and common law from their earliest beginnings, highlight the factors driving their emergence, contrast their approaches and remedial objectives, unpack key conflicts between them, and ultimately synthesize their enduring relevance in modern legal systems.
Introduction to Equity and Common Law
Equity and Common Law: Defining the Terms
Equity refers to a separate body of law, developed in England starting in the late Middle Ages, which was initially administered in special courts called Courts of Chancery. Equity involves principles based on fairness, conscience and equality, as opposed to the more rigid rules of common law.
Common law refers to the legal system developed in England from the 12th century onward, based on court rulings and customs rather than statutes. It involves precedent and legal principles derived from judicial decisions in actual cases.
Origin of Common Law and Equity: Tracing the Historical Roots
Common law traces back to the Norman conquest of England in 1066, when a unified system of law began taking shape. The principles of common law were derived from local customs and the decisions of King’s judges as they traveled to resolve disputes.
In contrast, equity emerged later, around the 15th century, when citizens petitioned the King for fairer solutions where common law was seen as deficient. This led to the establishment of the Court of Chancery to deal with matters of equity.
Equity as a Gloss on Common Law: Highlighting Key Distinctions
Some key differences that set equity apart from common law:
- Equity is more flexible - it looks to fairness rather than rigid rules.
- Equity developed to mitigate the common law's shortcomings. It is often termed a "gloss" on common law.
- Equity aims to achieve justice sometimes not possible under common law.
- Examples of equity principles are trusts, mortgages, and injunctions.
Article Goals: Unpacking the Relationship between Law and Equity
This article aims to analyze the historical origins of equity and common law, trace how they diverged, and assess the continuing dynamic between these two threads of English law. We will explore questions such as:
- How much equity was influenced by common law principles vs Roman law?
- Can equity and common law be fused into a single coherent system?
- What is the proper balance of rigid rules vs flexible principles?
The goal is to clarify the key distinctions between equity and common law and how they interrelate from both a historical and modern legal perspective.
What is the difference between equity law and common law?
Equity law and common law have distinct historical origins and serve complementary functions in the legal system.
Common law emerged in England following the Norman Conquest in 1066. It developed from the decisions of judges in local courts across England when hearing legal disputes. Over time, judges began to refer to past decisions when making rulings on similar cases, creating the doctrine of precedent. Common law deals primarily with legal rights and duties.
In contrast, equity originated to mitigate the rigidities of common law and provide more flexibility when the common law was unable to give remedy or justice. Equity law developed from the English Court of Chancery which was headed by the Lord Chancellor. He had the power to overrule common law decisions if they failed to provide a fair or just result. Equity deals mainly with trusts, mortgages, administration of estates, charities, and contracts where monetary damages are inadequate.
Today, most jurisdictions have fused the administration of common law and equity, however they continue to play distinct roles. Common law focuses on legal rights and obligations while equity aims to provide flexibility and fairness. Equity will prevail over common law when there is a direct conflict between the two bodies of law. However, if a matter falls within the common law doctrine of precedent, equity will rarely interfere with the common law ruling.
What was the difference between courts of law and courts of equity historically?
Historically, there was a key distinction between courts of law and courts of equity in the English legal system.
Courts of law could only award monetary damages as a remedy. They followed precedent and strictly applied legal rules. Courts of equity emerged separately to address situations where monetary awards were inadequate. Equity courts could order injunctive relief and specific performance of contracts. They followed principles of fairness and justice, not strict rules.
The Judicature Acts in the 1870s fused the administration of law and equity in England. However, they remained conceptually distinct. Equity acts upon the conscience of the defendant, while common law focuses on legal rights and duties. Modern legal systems retain this conceptual distinction between legal and equitable rights and remedies.
So in summary, the historical difference was that law courts provided monetary remedies and followed precedent, while equity courts ordered non-monetary relief based on principles of justice and fairness. This administration has fused but the conceptual distinction persists.
What is the biggest distinction between law and equity cases?
The biggest distinction between law and equity cases relates to the type of remedy or relief sought by the plaintiff.
Legal cases typically seek monetary damages as a remedy. For example, a plaintiff may sue for breach of contract and ask the court to award them money to compensate for their losses.
In contrast, equitable cases seek non-monetary remedies such as injunctions or specific performance. For example, a plaintiff may ask the court to order the defendant to do, or refrain from doing, a particular act.
Some key differences between law and equity cases:
- Remedies: Legal remedies are monetary while equitable remedies are non-monetary.
- Procedures: Equitable procedures were historically more flexible than common law procedures.
- Discretion: Equity aims to provide complete justice so judges have more discretion. Common law judges strictly apply precedent and statutes.
- Fusion: In many jurisdictions, there has been a fusion between law and equity courts and procedures. However, the distinction in remedies remains.
So in summary, the type of remedy is the biggest distinction. Plaintiffs that want money damages bring legal cases. Plaintiffs that want an injunction or specific performance bring equitable cases. Understanding this key difference will help guide whether a case should be filed as a legal or equitable claim.
What is the primary distinction between common law and civil law legal systems?
Common law and civil law are the two major legal systems in the world today. The primary distinction between them lies in the source of law.
In common law systems, such as those in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and other former British colonies, judges play a key role in developing the law through precedents and case law. Past judicial rulings are used as the basis for deciding current cases with similar facts. This reliance on judicial decisions as a source of law is called stare decisis.
In contrast, civil law systems rely primarily on codified laws contained in comprehensive civil codes as the main source of law. Countries with civil law systems include France, Germany, Japan, and most other European and Latin American countries. Judges in civil law systems rule based on the provisions of these codes and statutes, rather than deciding cases solely based on past precedents.
This fundamental difference in how common law and civil law systems treat the role of judicial decisions leads to further distinctions in areas like the importance of case law, the extent of judicial lawmaking, and the strength of stare decisis between the two legal traditions. However, many countries incorporate elements of both legal systems.
sbb-itb-585a0bc
The Evolution of English Common Law
Common Law's Earliest Beginnings
The origins of English common law can be traced back to the Anglo-Saxon period after the Roman withdrawal from Britain in the 5th century AD. The Anglo-Saxons brought with them their own customs and practices which formed the early basis for legal concepts like wergild (compensation for offenses) and oaths. After the Norman conquest in 1066, common law continued to develop under the reign of William the Conqueror, who ordered a survey of local laws and customs across England. This led to more uniformity, while still preserving regional legal traditions. Key principles like trial by jury also emerged during this formative period of common law's beginnings.
Historical Drivers of Common Law
Several major historical events and trends drove the expansion of English common law over the centuries. The Magna Carta in 1215 pushed back against absolute monarchical power and put common law on firmer ground. As trade and commerce grew in medieval England, common law gradually extended beyond criminal and family disputes to cover civil complaints between merchants, such as over contracts and property rights. Later, the rise of Parliament meant statutes increasingly supplemented judge-made common law. And during the Age of Empire, common law was exported to British colonies worldwide.
Common Law's Seminal Cases and Jurists
Many landmark cases and brilliant legal minds left their imprint on the development of English common law. Edward Coke, 17th century jurist and politician, helped cement common law's authority over English governance. William Blackstone's legal commentaries in the 1700s provided a systematic overview of common law principles. And cases like Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] established important precedents on civil liability still followed today. Together, these building blocks led to common law's remarkable longevity and influence across continents.
Identifying Common Law's Core Tenets and Traits
At its heart, English common law runs on core tenets like stare decisis (precedent), reliance on adjudicated cases over statutes, and evolving legal standards based on changing social custom and public policy goals. It is also defined by key traits like adversarial proceedings, use of juries for fact-finding, cross-examination in open court, and detailed written arguments. The cumulative weight of these doctrines and processes over a millennium of application gave common law its distinctive character and far-reaching impact across jurisdictions.
The Emergence and History of Courts of Equity
Addressing the Shortcomings of Early Common Law
Common law in medieval England developed from local customs and norms, but it had several deficiencies that failed to provide adequate remedies as society evolved. There were rigid writs limiting types of cases, no relief for future injuries, harsh penalties, and little flexibility to address new situations. Equity emerged to mitigate injustices.
From Royal Petitions to the Equity Source of Law
As common law courts provided insufficient remedies, subjects petitioned the King. The King delegated these petitions to his Lord Chancellor, who could overrule common law verdicts. Over time, the Lord Chancellor's decrees formed the equitable principles we know today - the "equity gloss" supplementing common law.
The Court of Chancery: Equity's Institutional Foundation
By the 15th century, petitions to the Lord Chancellor were growing. The Court of Chancery formed to handle such petitions based on fairness instead of precedents. It became the institutional foundation for applying equity alongside common law. Still, friction remained between the dual systems.
Equity's Core Principles and Landmark Rulings
Key equitable doctrines diverged from common law tradition, like trusts and injunctions. Landmark cases like Earl of Oxford's Case (1615) enforced commitments lacking common law requirements, cementing equity as supplementary source of law. Chancellor rulings set binding precedents.
Historical and Functional Distinctions of Law and Equity
Contrasting Legal Approaches and Remedial Objectives
Common law and equity developed contrasting interpretive methods and remedial goals. Common law followed a strict, rule-based approach aimed at providing monetary damages, while equity adopted a more flexible, discretionary approach focused on ordering parties to act or refrain from acting in certain ways.
For example, common law courts emphasized adherence to rigid writs and forms of action, assessing claims based on technical requirements rather than the merits of the underlying dispute. By contrast, courts of equity evaluated petitions based on principles of fairness and morality, seeking to provide relief where common law remedies were inadequate.
While common law prioritized precedent and consistency, equity courts would adapt rulings to the facts of each case to reach fair solutions based on good conscience. These divergent legal mentalities created tension over which approach should prevail when common law and equity came into conflict.
Common Law and Equity: Ongoing Clashes and Case Conflicts
Friction between common law and equity manifested in many areas, including property, trusts, and contracts. For instance, in property disputes, common law prioritized the rights of the legal owner, while courts of equity would sometimes protect the interests of beneficiaries based on the owner's moral duty.
Notable trust cases like Jones v Jones highlighted conflicts over whether common law or equitable principles should control when a trustee breached their duties. And in contract law, equitable remedies like specific performance ordering a party to complete its obligations clashed with common law's emphasis on monetary awards.
Through cases like these, judges and legal scholars continuously debated whether equitable rulings contradicting common law decisions were an impermissible overreach or a necessary corrective to balance the scales of justice.
The Fusion Debate: Common Law and Equity in Dialogue
By the 19th century, a movement emerged advocating the fusion of common law and equity through statutory reforms. However, fusing dual systems with contrasting remedial frameworks, procedures, and ideological approaches raised complex practical challenges.
While the Judicature Acts of 1873-1875 combined the common law and equity court systems in England, scholarly debates persisted over whether true fusion was feasible or merely "marbling" the distinct regimes. The challenge remains reconciling flexible equitable principles designed to ameliorate common law's rigid constructs without overriding them completely.
So while common law and equity are now administered through consolidated courts, tension continues between strict legal rules and discretionary equitable standards. As principles guiding fair and just decisions, equity provides an evolving counterbalance to balance common law's structural consistency.
The Enduring Function of Equity in Contemporary Law
Equity continues to play a pivotal role in modern legal systems despite the fusion of common law and equity. Its principles and devices enable the law to retain flexibility and fairness amidst rigid rules.
Trusts as Equity's Living Legacy
Trusts demonstrate equity's ongoing functional impact. Their evolution from uses and enforcement by Chancery illustrates equity's ability to adapt. Key cases like Target Holdings v Redferns on resulting trusts also show equity principles remaining active through trusts litigation.
Express, implied, resulting, and constructive trusts continue fulfilling various economic and social functions under equity. Compared to common law's bluntness, they enable customized and fair asset management.
Equitable Principles Overriding Common Law Precedents
Statutory schemes often allow overriding certain common law rules based on fairness. Although fusion largely aligned common law and equity, equitable principles at times still supersede precedents.
Overriding occurs when following a precedent would lead to unjust enrichment or unconscionable conduct. Courts then apply equity to prevent unfairness.
The Crucial Role of Equitable Discretion in Common Law Systems
Judicial discretion enables reaching morally proper outcomes even under common law. By considering case circumstances, judges mitigate issues of unfairness and undue hardship.
Equitable discretion maintains system integrity. Cases like AGIP Jackson and FC Jones & Sons demonstrate discretion preventing unjust results from strict rule application. Despite fusion, equity thus retains a vital balancing role through discretion.
Conclusion: Synthesizing the Legacy of Equity and Common Law
Recap of Historical and Functional Distinctions
Equity originated as a separate system of justice to mitigate the procedural constraints of the common law courts. Over time, equity developed substantive principles that diverged from and even contradicted common law rules. Key distinctions included equity's flexibility versus common law's rigid formalism, the respective roles of judges and juries, and variance in available remedies.
While equity was initially subordinate, it gradually established itself as an equal body of law. Fusion reforms in the 19th and 20th centuries integrated administration of the two systems in many jurisdictions. However, they continue to serve complementary purposes: common law establishes broad rules and precedents, while equity tempers their application to ensure fair outcomes.
Contemporary Relevance and Application
The interplay between common law and equity remains vitally important today. Equitable doctrines like fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and unconscionability are frequently invoked to prevent injustice. Trusts law is founded on equity. Equitable remedies provide flexible solutions unavailable at common law.
Judges still weigh equities in shaping legal rules and determining appropriate relief. The ethical dimension introduced by equity thus continues molding development of law - balancing the certainty of clear rules with the flexibility required for fairness.
Looking Forward: The Future of Equity and Common Law
While occasional calls still arise for fusing common law and equity into a single uniform system of jurisprudence, most experts argue equity should retain its distinct identity. Equity's inherent flexibility and ethical orientation enable it to balance and improve the legal order.
As societal values evolve, equity principles may further permeate substantive legal rules. However, common law methodology will likely remain the baseline, with equity principles continuing to act as a moral counterweight - introducing conscience and ethical perspectives into an adversarial legal framework. This synthesis enables the dual system to maintain stability while advancing justice.
