Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone? Please help
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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

    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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    ^
    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
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.