Equity Essay...understanding the question
Im a bit stumped by an equity essay. I can't quite figure out what the question is asking. Ive got 2 straight days of full on essay writing to get this done...3 if I push my luck.
"IT IS.. SAID THAT EQUITY 'SUPPLEMENTS' THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE COMMON LAW, BUT IF THAT IS CORRECT IT IS NEVERTHELESS THE CASE THAT EQUITY ONLY SUPPLEMENTS THE COMMON LAW WHEN BY DOING S IT CAN PREVENT UNCONSCIONABLE RELIANCE ON THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE COMMON LAW. 'UNCONSCIONABLE' CANNOT BE DEFINED IN THE ABSTRACT; IT CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD IN CONNECTION WITH THE FACTS OF PARTICULAR CASES
CONSIDER AND ILLUSTRATE THIS STATEMENT BY REFERENCE TO THE NATURE AND APPLICATION OF MODERN EQUITY"
Is this asking me to evaluate the word unconscionable and the cases surrounding it, or is it an essay focused on the shortcomings of Equity. Or both? I'm a little confused, just need a prod in the right direction. Thanks in advance
"IT IS.. SAID THAT EQUITY 'SUPPLEMENTS' THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE COMMON LAW, BUT IF THAT IS CORRECT IT IS NEVERTHELESS THE CASE THAT EQUITY ONLY SUPPLEMENTS THE COMMON LAW WHEN BY DOING S IT CAN PREVENT UNCONSCIONABLE RELIANCE ON THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE COMMON LAW. 'UNCONSCIONABLE' CANNOT BE DEFINED IN THE ABSTRACT; IT CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD IN CONNECTION WITH THE FACTS OF PARTICULAR CASES
CONSIDER AND ILLUSTRATE THIS STATEMENT BY REFERENCE TO THE NATURE AND APPLICATION OF MODERN EQUITY"
Is this asking me to evaluate the word unconscionable and the cases surrounding it, or is it an essay focused on the shortcomings of Equity. Or both? I'm a little confused, just need a prod in the right direction. Thanks in advance
firstly you wan to decide whether you think equity and the common law are fused, if you dont then you need to consider whether they operate with each other or in conflict. This should lead you on to considering the unconscionability as this is probably the easiest way to demonstrate the two branches of law co existing to complement and supplement each other. When discussing the uncinscionbility aspects pick a side and stick to it the criticism of the opposing view point will get better marks then just outlining alternative views
1) Does equity only work when it can prevent unconscionable reliance on the shortcomings of common law? I can think of a few examples where it really goes beyond the common law (equitable remedies and some uses of trusts come to mind)
2) Can unconscionable be defined in the abstract? This is asking whether it takes on a unprincipled "case by case" development or whether there are any underlying principles. Do you think there are consistent principles in equity or not?
Difficult question to do early in the course, try using a lot of journal articles
2) Can unconscionable be defined in the abstract? This is asking whether it takes on a unprincipled "case by case" development or whether there are any underlying principles. Do you think there are consistent principles in equity or not?
Difficult question to do early in the course, try using a lot of journal articles
Original post by jacketpotato
1) Does equity only work when it can prevent unconscionable reliance on the shortcomings of common law? I can think of a few examples where it really goes beyond the common law (equitable remedies and some uses of trusts come to mind)
2) Can unconscionable be defined in the abstract? This is asking whether it takes on a unprincipled "case by case" development or whether there are any underlying principles. Do you think there are consistent principles in equity or not?
Difficult question to do early in the course, try using a lot of journal articles
2) Can unconscionable be defined in the abstract? This is asking whether it takes on a unprincipled "case by case" development or whether there are any underlying principles. Do you think there are consistent principles in equity or not?
Difficult question to do early in the course, try using a lot of journal articles
Thats made it so much easier to understand
And yea it is a hard question this early on isn't it :/My plan now is to have the essay in two halves using the 2 areas you have just suggested. Then tidy them up in the conclusion. Just one last question, in the introduction, do you think it best to define unconsionable as well as a breif overview of equity?
Original post by andygcfc
Thats made it so much easier to understand And yea it is a hard question this early on isn't it :/
My plan now is to have the essay in two halves using the 2 areas you have just suggested. Then tidy them up in the conclusion. Just one last question, in the introduction, do you think it best to define unconsionable as well as a breif overview of equity?
And yea it is a hard question this early on isn't it :/My plan now is to have the essay in two halves using the 2 areas you have just suggested. Then tidy them up in the conclusion. Just one last question, in the introduction, do you think it best to define unconsionable as well as a breif overview of equity?
Yes, I do. Though obviously you should also consider the opposing view advocated by the question re: unconscionable which says that it can't be defined and is totally context dependent
Original post by jacketpotato
Yes, I do. Though obviously you should also consider the opposing view advocated by the question re: unconscionable which says that it can't be defined and is totally context dependent
Fantastic. This is incredible guidance, thank you so much. But can I be a pain and ask one last question.
"Does equity only work when it can prevent unconscionable reliance on the shortcomings of common law?" This phrase is causing me to cringe every time I see it. How do you simplify it? Ie, does this loosely translate as "Does equity only work when the law has failed and doesn't go out of its way to prevent it from happening"
Thank you so much, and sorry to be a pain
^
Yes
Its a historical thing really. Think about how the courts of equity were physically separate courts, based on the Chancellor's personal jurisdiction, that would give people a different result to that available in the law courts where the strictness of the law courts was perceived as unfair
Though the statement above is limited to "unconscionable reliance", it isn't totally general
Yes
Its a historical thing really. Think about how the courts of equity were physically separate courts, based on the Chancellor's personal jurisdiction, that would give people a different result to that available in the law courts where the strictness of the law courts was perceived as unfair
Though the statement above is limited to "unconscionable reliance", it isn't totally general
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- 1st Class Law Essays
- law problem question
- Law Essays and Problem Questions - How to write 1st class/high 2.1 answers
- University of law online pgdl
- Legal Career: Questions from a Y13 Student
- is it worth finishing my law degree?
- How to get a first in Law problem questions
- Tips for Occupational Therapy Interviews
- AQA A Level Business Paper 2 (7132/2) - 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- New semester new start
- 25 Mark economics essay!
- equity and trusts
- 3rd year law help
- Books before applying for Economics
- How is the teaching quality and content of Msc Finance at LSE?
- uni
- Seeking Financial Support for place at Christ Hospital sixth form
- Unveiling the Realm of Investment Banking
- Whats the difference between social exchange theory and equity theory AQA Psychology?
- Help understanding Psychology essay question
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
