An overview of equity

M. Bryan, Vicki Vann, Susan Thomas
{"title":"An overview of equity","authors":"M. Bryan, Vicki Vann, Susan Thomas","doi":"10.1017/CBO9781139194013.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What is equity? The word ‘equity’ is one of the most ambiguous in the law. Its\n most obvious meaning is fairness and justice. Many would argue that equity\n is the overriding goal of all law. How could the law ever justify\n un fair or in equitable outcomes? But a\n moment's thought will show that applying, without more, the criterion of\n ‘fairness’ to solve all legal problems is open to serious\n objections. Decisions will inevitably reflect the subjective beliefs and\n values of the adjudicator as to what is fair. In a pluralist democracy\n disputes about what is fair or equitable are settled by elected legislators,\n not by unelected judges, except where legislation has explicitly authorised\n judges to determine cases by reference to considerations of fairness. Judges\n do not assess what is equitable without reference to some standard or\n benchmark. Secondly, equity sometimes refers to the principles applied by judges where\n the law is deficient for some reason. Aristotle is the first recorded writer\n to define ‘equity’ in these terms. In Nicomachean\n Ethics , Aristotle contrasted law, which was said to be\n ‘universal’ in its application, with equity which was seen as\n ‘a correction of law where it was defective owing to its\n universality’. We might nowadays query the assumption that legal\n rules are invariably of universal application. Moreover, the preferable\n response in a democratic society to a legal rule that cannot do justice in\n an individual case is to invite the legislature to reform the law. But\n Aristotle anticipated the lawyer's idea of equity in two respects. First,\n equity corrects, or supplements, the law but does not replace it. The fact\n that equity modifies the application of the law in specific instances does\n not impair the legitimacy of the law in those cases where there is no need\n of equity. Secondly, some equitable doctrines can be explained in terms of\n the dilemma of ‘universality’ in the law: a soundly based\n legal rule of general application can on occasions be exploited for improper\n purposes. For example, where the law requires some contracts to be in\n writing equity can modify the writing requirement where its application\n would cause injustice.","PeriodicalId":193827,"journal":{"name":"A Sourcebook on Equity and Trusts in Australia","volume":"1985 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"A Sourcebook on Equity and Trusts in Australia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139194013.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What is equity? The word ‘equity’ is one of the most ambiguous in the law. Its most obvious meaning is fairness and justice. Many would argue that equity is the overriding goal of all law. How could the law ever justify un fair or in equitable outcomes? But a moment's thought will show that applying, without more, the criterion of ‘fairness’ to solve all legal problems is open to serious objections. Decisions will inevitably reflect the subjective beliefs and values of the adjudicator as to what is fair. In a pluralist democracy disputes about what is fair or equitable are settled by elected legislators, not by unelected judges, except where legislation has explicitly authorised judges to determine cases by reference to considerations of fairness. Judges do not assess what is equitable without reference to some standard or benchmark. Secondly, equity sometimes refers to the principles applied by judges where the law is deficient for some reason. Aristotle is the first recorded writer to define ‘equity’ in these terms. In Nicomachean Ethics , Aristotle contrasted law, which was said to be ‘universal’ in its application, with equity which was seen as ‘a correction of law where it was defective owing to its universality’. We might nowadays query the assumption that legal rules are invariably of universal application. Moreover, the preferable response in a democratic society to a legal rule that cannot do justice in an individual case is to invite the legislature to reform the law. But Aristotle anticipated the lawyer's idea of equity in two respects. First, equity corrects, or supplements, the law but does not replace it. The fact that equity modifies the application of the law in specific instances does not impair the legitimacy of the law in those cases where there is no need of equity. Secondly, some equitable doctrines can be explained in terms of the dilemma of ‘universality’ in the law: a soundly based legal rule of general application can on occasions be exploited for improper purposes. For example, where the law requires some contracts to be in writing equity can modify the writing requirement where its application would cause injustice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公平概述
什么是权益?“衡平法”一词是法律中最模棱两可的词之一。它最明显的含义是公平和正义。许多人认为公平是所有法律的首要目标。法律怎么能证明不公平或不公平的结果?但是,只要稍微思考一下就会发现,把“公平”这一标准单纯地应用于解决所有法律问题是容易遭到严重反对的。裁决将不可避免地反映裁判对公平的主观信念和价值观。在多元民主制度下,关于公平或公平的争议由选举产生的立法者解决,而不是由非选举产生的法官解决,除非立法明确授权法官根据公平考虑来决定案件。法官在不参照某种标准或基准的情况下,不会评估什么是公平的。其次,衡平法有时指法官在法律因某种原因存在缺陷时所适用的原则。亚里士多德是第一个用这些术语定义“公平”的作家。在《尼各马可伦理学》中,亚里士多德将法律与公平进行了对比,前者被认为在应用上是“普遍的”,而后者被认为是“对因其普遍性而有缺陷的法律的一种纠正”。我们现在可能会质疑法律规则总是普遍适用的假设。此外,在民主社会中,对于不能在个别案件中公正处理的法律规则,最好的反应是邀请立法机关改革法律。但亚里士多德在两个方面预言了律师的衡平法。首先,衡平法纠正或补充了法律,但不能取代它。衡平法在特定情况下改变了法律的适用,这一事实并不损害在不需要衡平法的情况下法律的合法性。其次,一些衡平法的理论可以从法律的“普遍性”的困境来解释:一个基础健全的普遍适用的法律规则有时会被利用于不正当的目的。例如,当法律要求某些合同采用书面形式时,衡平法可以修改其适用可能导致不公正的书面要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Breach of trust: Defences and remedies The concept of the express trust Rescission and rectification Trustees’ duties and powers Trustee’s rights and liabilities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1