law as level please

Equity is a historical source: it has no role in the modern legal system. Critically consider the accuracy of this statement. please can you share your ideas. it is important for us to share knowledge please.
it think

Equity in law is the branch of jurisprudence most prominently associated with the Common Law system — though Equity will operate somewhat differently between those systems. Broadly speaking, Equity is administered in tandem with the common law.Certainly in the modern Common Law world at least, Equity has high relevance.For starters, courts already have statutory remedies, which are expressly provided for in the legislation. This means the winner of a lawsuit gets statutory remedies by right in most normal circumstances. But sometimes the statutory remedies don’t go far enough.That’s when Equity starts kicking into play in relevance. Equity arose several centuries ago from the English legal system. Equity is entirely a creation of the courts to provide an additional set of measures — equitable remedies — where statutory remedies are unavailable, inapplicable or incomplete for some reason. The doctrine is that Equity operates on generally accepted notions of ‘fairness’ and ‘equality,’ based on the defendant’s conscience, knowledge, state of mind or motives (or all of them, plus the court’s own conscience).The injunction and the specific performance are the two most famous forms of equitable remedies and the commonest applied in most legal situations. There are at least a dozen others, depending on the jurisdiction.In the modern Common Law world, both statutory and equitable remedies have long merged and a single court can administer one or both.In other words, Equity provides the second pillar of justice, fairness and equity to make up for any shortcomings in the statutory side of the law — so that the “law” isn’t so extraordinarily locked into just administering the written letter of the law (“blackletter law”) and has a way out to provide “the spirit of the law” as well. i don't know if it is acceptable

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 1

Notoriety

22

A few pointers:

The dichotomy is common law and equity. It is not "statutory remedies" vs equity.

Equity was not created by the courts. A court of equity was created which administered equity, although equity had in theory pre-existed even this. You seem to be saying that the common law courts just came up with equitable solutions by themselves which is wholly wrong.

I am not sure injunctions and specific performance are more common than damages.

Reply 2

Notoriety

22

Original post by artful_lounger

You could start by sharing your ideas on the matter, rather than simply expecting the forum to do your homework for you.

Also since this is a study help question, and in particular isn't even about degree level law, this is in the wrong forum...

You can post A-Level here.

Reply 3

artful_lounger

Universities Forum Helper

21

Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.

You can post A-Level here.

I am aware and that was the intention as it's been moved to the law study help forum from the law university courses forum.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 4

Audrey18

21

@kenza lindsay

which exam board is this for?

Reply 5

kenza lindsay

OP

15

Original post by Audrey18

@kenza lindsay

which exam board is this for?

CIE

Reply 6

999tigger

19

Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.

A few pointers:

The dichotomy is common law and equity. It is not "statutory remedies" vs equity.

Equity was not created by the courts. A court of equity was created which administered equity, although equity had in theory pre-existed even this. You seem to be saying that the common law courts just came up with equitable solutions by themselves which is wholly wrong.

I am not sure injunctions and specific performance are more common than damages.