Talk:Equity (law)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
⚖
Law Portal
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 and the subjects encompassed by it.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale.
A summary of this article appears in Law.

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.

This article badly needs an outline. To begin with: the equity-law distinction should not be brought up until later in the article, after equity is positively defined and examples are given. We should know all about the equitable remedies and defenses/axioms of equity (i.e., what equity IS) before we learn about the parallel system of law. Doing it this way will prevent the novice from becoming too confused to read the article when legalese definitions of "law" and "legal" get thrown around.

When you get to there, a separate sentence should inform the reader that "law" and "legal" are legal terms of art that discriminate between one system of law and another. It may be helpful to the reader here to point out that the two systems used to have separate courts in the UK and USA. This will give them something physical with which to ground their understanding.

Why are we doing a compare and contrast to law in the introductory section of the article? Again, saying what equity is NOT should come only after we know what equity IS.

Also, the introductory, basic section defining equity should be kept short to produce the highest quality definition of the term.

Here's my suggested outline:

I Equity Defined - try to make it one paragraph!

II History - the section we have now is good

III Remedies and Defenses - make a list, remedies first, then defenses

IV Contrasted with Law - cut and paste this info that was confusingly scattered throughout the article introduction into its own section.

The following should go at the end, because they are not crucial to understanding equity, unlike the other parts. They also are very similar topics, really in the field of comparative law, so we should group them together.

V Development in England VI Development in the United States VII Comparison of equity traditions in common law countries

Statute of Uses should probably go in a wiki on historical tax avoidance.

I may implement this outline myself if there are no objections. But feel free to do it yourself. Really, any-non-confusing revision would be great - this is just a suggestion. I know WE understand the article, but we read lawyers for a living.

Jake, San Diego, 4.24.2007

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)
Merge the remedies into this article. Not that remedies aren't independently important but that equity cannot be understood apart from its remedies. Equity without its remedies is like a tree without wood. Alternately, just give examples, especially specific performance and injunctions, since those are the most famous.

Jake, San Diego, 4.24.2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.101.148.91 (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2007 (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)

Add another lost wanderer who was looking for the "business" term to the list. If "sensor" has found a disambiguation page, it would be nice if he/she could put a link in from the top of this page, so the rest of us can get there. Is there any page on "equity" in the economics/business/accounting sense?? Lisa4edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.23.111 (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[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)
Agreed. This Act is not taught within the core module of Equity within English LLB. degrees.Ben stephenson (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2008 (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)

[edit] Inaccuracy

Equity, however, enters injunctions or decrees directing someone either to act or to forbear from acting. Often this form of relief is in practical terms more valuable to a litigant. A plaintiff whose neighbor will not return his only milk cow, which wandered onto the neighbor's property, for example, may want that particular cow back and not just its monetary value.

The example doesn't work. You would obtain the return of your milk cow (assuming your neighbor refused to return it) by a writ of replevin in law not in equity. A court that decrees and injunction in such a case is improperly applying the rule that equity will not provide a remedy when there is an adequate remedy at law. I think the writer is really referring to specific performance as an equitable remedy, but that applies to contracts and is not generally available for cows.

Law courts also enter orders, called "writs" (such as a writ of habeas corpus) but they are less flexible and less easily obtained than an injunction.

I beg your pardon, but I got a writ of execution yesterday and it was a darn site easier than I expect the decree of injunction I'm seeking next week will be. I think when the writer speaks of writs he or she means extraordinary writs which are a special case. And in New Hampshire, where I also practice, one still obtains an original writ to initiate a case, while technically an order (analogous to a summons), it is pretty easy to get one - you just buy it. Injunctions on the other hand are a lot of work and never what one would call "easily obtained".

--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And I have to add this that I just noticed:

This difference is not a mere technicality, because the successful handling of certain law cases is difficult or impossible unless a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction is issued at the outset, to restrain someone from fleeing the jurisdiction taking the only property available to satisfy a judgment, for instance.

Again, the example would be accomplished by a writ of attachment, not a restraining order or a preliminary injunction. Sorry, I'm sure there are more. This article is very long and I only scanned the article very quickly. I'll try to come by later and make a few corrections. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've given the article a {{cleanup}} tag for now - law doesn't seem to have it's own cleanup tag.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted 4.157.92.172's change, because I explained my tag. Please discuss if you think the tag is unwarranted.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phrasing/title question

In the section Equity (law)#Development of equity in England, the phrase "a judgment of Coke CJ" strikes me (a non-lawyer, unfamiliar with legal titles and terminology) as strange. I eventually realized that it meant "Coke, Chief Justice", but I'm not sure that meaning is readily apparent in the text (despite the reference to "The Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, Sir Edward Coke" in the preceding sentence). In fact, my first thought on coming across the phrase "Coke CJ" was that it was a remnant of vandalism which had been missed at some point, and it was only after looking through the history that I realized my error.

I assume that "Coke CJ" is meaningful to legal experts, but it looks very odd to a layman. Would it be a terrible faux pas or misrepresentation to rephrase that as "a judgment of Chief Justice Coke"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Edgecomb removed

I was cleaning up the sources for some of the sections, and noticed that two sections had listed as a source "Andrew Edgecomb 2006". This seemed at best malformed, so I checked the history: it turns out that that was added in February 2006 by one Aje 1 (talk · contribs). (See diff.) I suspect that this was an attempt to sign a contribution, rather than to list a source; the other sources he lists have more full bibliographic details. (I also discovered a blog on legal matters by one Andrew Edgecomb, which I think supports the "signature" reading.) If I've erred, and Andrew Edgecomb is a legal scholar whose 2006 writings were used as a source for this article, please restore him with a more detailed citation (what 2006 work?). But I suspect that this was just a newbie contributor wishing to sign his work. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structural problem

It would be great if someone knowledgeable about the subject could integrate the section Equity (law)#Statute of Uses 1535 into Equity (law)#Development of equity in England. As it is, the history section goes from the 13th century, through to the 19th, and then back to the 16th. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)