The relationship between equity law and common legislation has been a matter of debate for ages. While equity law developed as a tool for solving injustices, common law is still the basis of many countries. These legal systems are based on the common laws of England and are developed case by case. Courts use precedent to resolve disputes and make decisions. If an equity court rules in favor of a particular party, then that party is entitled to that benefit.
Equity law originated from common law in old England. Unlike common law, equity allows courts to apply their judgments and decisions more liberally. It supersedes all other laws, including statutes. It emerged in response to the rigors of English legal courts. Frustrated plaintiffs turned to the King for help, and he set up the Court of Chancery to deal with the law of equity.
While both common law and equity laws have their advantages and disadvantages, the relationship between the two has been the subject of debate for centuries. In the past, courts of equity were largely controversial, and people often distrusted judges who had made rules based on obscure precedents. Today, most state and federal courts combine the two forms of law. Its realism is reflected in its ability to enforce justice while avoiding the prejudices inherent in common law.
The difference between common and equity law is primarily a question of how they work. Common law only gave monetary remedies, and it limited the courts’ ability to deal with issues of non-monetary value. By contrast, the law of equity introduced a weighing system for judges, and it significantly boosted the remedies available to parties. And when you compare the two, they differ remarkably. But, while common law gives you greater protection, equity allows you to seek a different remedy in more complicated cases.