Talk:Equity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| Top | This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] comments
Doing a search for 'equity' makes me think that there is need for disambiguation page for the term. I think this would be helpful if someone would do it.
Isis: I didn't see that you were at work on this: thanks for letting me know. I'll stop editing this for now. -- The Anome 09:09 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)
---
Carey: I have far better text on fairness. Fairness is, amongst other things, a 10-fold categorization of the Ombudsman of Ontario, that allows decisions of the government that affect an individual, to be found wrong. The page (that went offline at the Ombudsman site): http://www.ijs.co.nz/fairness-standards.htm
That page could also be a wikipedia handbook on how to word up charges of unreasonableness and "unfairness" about decisions by other wikipedia members. 16-Jul-2003.
---
This page could use a list of Equitable Remedies. I'll work on it. Moreover, it needs to have a history section, and a section for the practice of equity in the US, because, for instance, the UK system of equities has changed.
I also feel a disambiguation page coming.
Reid 19:23, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
- Is there not already a sufficient list of equitable remedies in the article with that name? Legis 12:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History
The History Section seems rather sparse. Conceptually equity should be linked first to Aristotle before the development of equitable doctrine as it exists now began in the UK. The development of chancery and its eventual fusion with common law courts should be ellaborated upon. as a link to "Fusion Fallacy" which is completely inadequately explained. The various roles that equity plays should be discussed more before launching into the point about equitable vs common law remedies.
[edit] Specific performance vs. damages
If a plaintiff requests damages in the form of money or certain other forms of relief, such as the return of a specific item of property, the remedy is considered legal, and the American Constitution guarantees a right to a trial by jury.
This seems to contradict the example of a wandering cow given in the article. Josh Cherry 15:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Nope. Anything involving damages, whether it be the award of money or property, is a remedy at law, and is not properly subject to an equitable remedy. - Sensor 00:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
But damages are, by definition, money. See Garner, Black's Law Dictonary 2d. Specific performance is an equitable remedy, not a legal one. The sentence above about "a specific item of property" is just wrong.
- Yes, specific performance is an equitable remedy. But replevin (the action at law for return of a particular item of property) has traditionally been a legal rather than equitable remedy. See Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed. (St. Paul: West Group, 1999), p. 1302. This is a weird exception to the legal/equitable distinction which one has to memorize for the bar exam. --Coolcaesar 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Equity in economics
I've just added another meaning for the term equity. I suspect it needs to rand alongside equity in law. Maybe a disambiguation page is required? (I'm new to this.)
A disambiguation page would go a long way to clearing this all up, but i dont ahve the faintest idea on how to set all that up. Oldsoul 14:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes I thought it was a bit odd that Equity flys straight to the law definiton, Equity in accounting is a commonly used term. Im new to and dont know how to correct that though. Maybe ill be back. --lincs_geezer 22:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- There is a disambiguation page, but I agree that equity should go to a disambig page first. - Sensor 00:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
YOU GUYS NEED TO GET A LIFE
[edit] Note: Selected article at Portal:Law
This article was the selected article at Portal:Law from June 25, 2005 to August 27, 2005. BD2412 T 20:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Badly needed edit
Dear Jrgetsin, This is an encyclopaedia, not a judicial decision. 'Dissenting opinions' are out of place. Either edit the article to suit what you say or just leave it alone. The 'Statute of Uses' bit is rather irrelevant to the article, bordering on trivia. It could do with its own page.GSTQ 01:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I concur. The messy history of the Statute of Uses is only minimally relevant to the larger concept of equity and should be treated in a separate article. Indeed, it is usually not taught along with equity in civil procedure courses in the United States; it is mentioned only briefly in Wills and Trusts courses. --Coolcaesar 16:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statute of Uses
Can someone check the date on this? I remember it as 1536, not 1535. The Equity article says 1535, while the Statute of Uses article says 1536. I can check it tonight; I just don't have my books with me right now. Yours, Famspear 15:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I looked it up. The Statute of Uses was enacted in 1535 and became effective in 1536. Notation added to article. Yours, Famspear 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
