Law of equity: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{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 | {{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™
|
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.