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: | ||
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}}. | |||
{{ | {{sa}} | ||
*[[High Court of Justice]] | |||
*[[Queen’s Bench Division]] | |||
*[[Time is of the essence]] | *[[Time is of the essence]] | ||
*[[Clog on the equity of redemption]] | *[[Clog on the equity of redemption]] | ||
{{egg}} | {{egg}} | ||
Revision as of 09:41, 2 July 2019
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.