Fairness can be described in general terms as being fair, while the legal meaning of equity refers to the rules established to mitigate the severity of common law norms and those issues that are not covered under common law jurisdiction . The principle of the law of equity goes back to England where it was administered by the high court of the chancellery. It is important to understand the nature and history of the equity law to understand the concerns it addresses in a legal system.
Throughout the centuries from the twelfth to the nineteenth, common law was developed and advanced in England, common law is largely uncoded. This implies that there is not a complete compilation of legal principles and statutes; therefore, the common law system is based on statutes, which are a consequence of the decisions of the legislative authority . It is based largely on precedents or court decisions that are adopted in comparable cases. In general, the decisions of the superior courts entrust the judges of the common law system with a very important role in the formation of the law. These precedents are recorded and documented as yearbook case laws, however, and legal reports.
In the past, common law depended largely on judicial precedents, which were much more formal and rigid. The lack of flexibility of the common law system left people anxious as they could not get relief from Reyes bank, which administers the legal system. Many litigants were disappointed by the common law system, when their complaints were dismissed on the basis of breach of court procedures, or because of the lack of precedents on the particular issue. Aggrieved citizens then began petitioning the King who was placed on the cusp of the legal system, also known as the "Source of Justice." These petitions appealed to the king to do justicein certain subjects that were not treated or have not been treated with justice by the Room of Kings. With the increase of petitions made to the King, he gave him the task of inquiring about these petitions to the "guardian of the conscience of the king" or the Chancellor who directed the Chancellery. The Chancellor usually determines petitions based on moral grounds. In other words, the Foreign Ministry would do none of those issues or deny relief according to its sense of what is right and wrong or on a merit basis, as opposed to based on the judicial precedents of common law courts .
The independence of the Court of Equity was established in the year 1474 when the Chancellor issued the first decree in his own name. The chancellor was not bound by the English writing system to use the juries during the trials. He had the discretion and authority to summon the people to investigate the cases, order the disclosure of the documents, to decide the cases based on what is morally correct.
The flexibility, simple procedures and equitable remedies made the atrium of equity (the Chancellery) became popular among the people. However, problems arose when the jurisdiction of the chancery court began to overlap the jurisdiction of the courts of common law; for example, the mandates issued by the Chancellor's action of restriction in common law courts were challenged by common law practitioners. Subsequently, he formed a rivalry between the two courts, as described in the case count of the Oxford box, where the common law court had decided in favor of one of the parties and the court of the capital issued a court order against of the execution of the sentence. Later it was resolved that the law of equity prevail over the common law. Consequently, the law of equity presumes its place in the English legal system And the authority of the court of the Chancellery became more intense, since it was through this courts that monetary relief by itself,
Throughout the centuries from the twelfth to the nineteenth, common law was developed and advanced in England, common law is largely uncoded. This implies that there is not a complete compilation of legal principles and statutes; therefore, the common law system is based on statutes, which are a consequence of the decisions of the legislative authority . It is based largely on precedents or court decisions that are adopted in comparable cases. In general, the decisions of the superior courts entrust the judges of the common law system with a very important role in the formation of the law. These precedents are recorded and documented as yearbook case laws, however, and legal reports.
In the past, common law depended largely on judicial precedents, which were much more formal and rigid. The lack of flexibility of the common law system left people anxious as they could not get relief from Reyes bank, which administers the legal system. Many litigants were disappointed by the common law system, when their complaints were dismissed on the basis of breach of court procedures, or because of the lack of precedents on the particular issue. Aggrieved citizens then began petitioning the King who was placed on the cusp of the legal system, also known as the "Source of Justice." These petitions appealed to the king to do justicein certain subjects that were not treated or have not been treated with justice by the Room of Kings. With the increase of petitions made to the King, he gave him the task of inquiring about these petitions to the "guardian of the conscience of the king" or the Chancellor who directed the Chancellery. The Chancellor usually determines petitions based on moral grounds. In other words, the Foreign Ministry would do none of those issues or deny relief according to its sense of what is right and wrong or on a merit basis, as opposed to based on the judicial precedents of common law courts .
The independence of the Court of Equity was established in the year 1474 when the Chancellor issued the first decree in his own name. The chancellor was not bound by the English writing system to use the juries during the trials. He had the discretion and authority to summon the people to investigate the cases, order the disclosure of the documents, to decide the cases based on what is morally correct.
The flexibility, simple procedures and equitable remedies made the atrium of equity (the Chancellery) became popular among the people. However, problems arose when the jurisdiction of the chancery court began to overlap the jurisdiction of the courts of common law; for example, the mandates issued by the Chancellor's action of restriction in common law courts were challenged by common law practitioners. Subsequently, he formed a rivalry between the two courts, as described in the case count of the Oxford box, where the common law court had decided in favor of one of the parties and the court of the capital issued a court order against of the execution of the sentence. Later it was resolved that the law of equity prevail over the common law. Consequently, the law of equity presumes its place in the English legal system And the authority of the court of the Chancellery became more intense, since it was through this courts that monetary relief by itself,
Post A Comment:
0 comments: