Law of equity: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{g}}Nowadays taking bodily form in the shape of the [[Chancery Division]] of the [[High Court of Justice]] of England and Wales, the [[courts of chancery]] were the originators of the principles of {{t|equity}}, that great rug of English jurisprudence under which, for hundreds of years, jurists have swept the vicissitudes of a rigid, or [[Rock Advertising Limited v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited - Case Note|stupid]], application of the law of {{tag|contract}}.
{{a|trust|}}Nowadays taking bodily form in the shape of the [[Chancery Division]] of the [[High Court of Justice]] of England and Wales, the [[courts of chancery]] were the originators of the principles of [[equity]], that great rug of English jurisprudence under which, for hundreds of years, jurists have swept the vicissitudes of a rigid, or [[Rock Advertising Limited v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited - Case Note|stupid]], application of the law of [[contract]].


{{sa}}
{{sa}}

Latest revision as of 13:30, 14 August 2024

Trusts, fiduciaries and matters of equity
When the common law goes a bit runny at the edges™
Index: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Nowadays taking bodily form in the shape of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, the courts of chancery were the originators of the principles of equity, that great rug of English jurisprudence under which, for hundreds of years, jurists have swept the vicissitudes of a rigid, or stupid, application of the law of contract.

See also