The distinction between common and equity law and courts sometimes lies in the definition. Law is the body that rules and governs the community’s activities and which is executed by its political authority. English Royal courts developed the common law, whose basis is customs and the judicial decisions of previous court cases. In the Law vs Equity concept, equity allows courts to apply justice based on natural law and on their discretion. Whenever there is a disagreement as to the application of common law, equity is applicable. Common law awards monetary damages in some instances, but equity decrees to act or not to act on something. While a law court can involve a jury, there is no jury involved in equity. The distinction between common and equity courts and law lies in the solutions that they offer.

For more information on the distinction between common and equity law and courts, click

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMON AND EQUITY COURTS AND WHY IT MATTERS

The distinction between common and equity law and courts makes a big difference in America. Believe it or not, there are two different court systems in Florida. There is a significant distinction between a court of law attorney and an attorney who practices in equity. Precisely, a law court must follow the black letter rules, unlike an equity court. The equity court has the ability to do what is fair thus the distinction between common and equity courts. Family law is much a court of equity subject matter, while contracts are much a court of law issue. A brief history of the progression of American courts is that the common law started with the King’s rule. The King’s decree stated that it was a must for one to follow it strictly, therefore, no deviation. The Law vs Equity concept matters since black letter laws have no consideration of social circumstances.

For more information on the distinction between common and equity courts and why it matters, click

EQUITY VS LAW ACCORDING TO SIR TERENCE ETHERTON

The distinction between common and equity law and courts is also part of Sir Terence’s theory. Etherton says there are significant areas of current equity jurisprudence requiring a specific ingredient of unconscionability. The critical regions requiring equity jurisprudence include receipt of a mistaken payment with knowledge of the mistake. According to Angloxan’s concept of equity, Aristotle Law vs. Equity concept sees equity as perfecting positive law justice. Equity is a result of the moral and legal basis for avoiding the strict requirements of the common law. Historically, judicial equity was for mitigating the rigor of the strict common law. By the 15th century, clerical chancellors were able to satisfy the demands of conscience through rules of the law. The distinction between common and equity courts also traces back to the 15th century.

For more information on equity vs law according to Sir Terence Etherton, click

Additional attachments

>> Download