Development of Equity

Development of Equity Introduction
Before the Norman Conquest of 1066, there was no common law system, law was written in codes influenced by Roman law and created by local kings. Shire courts and hundred courts were responsible for law enforcement. The legal system was mainly based on custom and tradition by the intervention of god. The law was often reformed, being how the king wanted it to be. The Lord Chancellor, who was the chief legal administrator of the kingdom and the king, made their own law which was not common to all, this inflexibility made the people of England dissatisfied. The common law system began to develop only after the Norman Conquest. The Angelo Saxon law remained unchanged with only a few changes being made to suit their needs, which mostly favoured the Normans and the rich than the Saxons. In the 12th and 13th centuries “The Royal Principle Courts” were developed gradually which was later known as the “king’s bench, the court of common pleas and the court of exchequer”, which sat in Westminster. This system attracted the people to seek justice for them. (Mulholland, 2001)
Common Law
The Three Royal Principles were then redefined since the lack of interest by the king, and virtually remained the same. However, some names of the courts were changed. The Royal courts remained the same and very important cases held by the kings were conducted here. The king’s officials held quarter sessions which were held four times a year than previously twice a year and dealt with serious cases. Hundreds courts, helped to sought out minor crimes, was conducted once a month, the Manor court which was to sort the workers of the kingdom remained the same. A petitioner who obtained a favourable judgement in the common law courts was prevented from enforcing it by an injunction granted by the “court of chancery, Earl of Oxford case (1615)21 ER 485”. The conflict between the courts of common law” .(Mulholland, 2001)

The Writ System
Owing to the injustice in the common law, Writ system was developed by the judges which were a document that had the details of the claim. A system was required to make a claim; hence the claimant to make a claim had to purchase a go-ahead form from the royal writ from the king’s Chancery which gave orders to the judges to hear the matter. Each writ formed its own rules and by 14th century too many writ claims were made and too many rules were developed. The claimants were instructed to use only the existing writ and the judges were very strict on the writ petitions that even if the application had minor mistakes they refused to hear the case. This was the main cause for the development of equity(Webb, Sanders, Scott, & McDowell, 2010).
Equity
The word “Equity” means fairness or justice, but its legal meaning is that constitutions of rules strengthened and enforced by the Court of Chancery.

Petitioners were dissatisfied with the function and the system of the three courts and petitioned the Monarch to do justice. The Monarch passed the petition to the Lord Chancellor who is also reoffered to as “keeper of the king”. The Lord Chancellor then established his own court of chancery to treat the petitions. Gradually in the 15th century the “law chancellors legal decisions were known as “Equity” and was separate from the law of the royal courts. The Lord Chancellor’s system was well established and was a cure to the problems caused by the firm and inflexible royal legal system. Equity, however, did not replace the common law by the royal court but was in conjunction with it. Additional jurisdictions were developed in the areas where common law did not function. The royal court system and the chancellor’s court continued till the end of the 19th century. It was clearly known that it was difficult to maintain both the court systems.
Equity became the most flexible methodology in doing justice. New rights and solutions were developed like: law of trust, mortgages, remedies of injection and specific performance, declaratory judgement, right of reflection, right of recession, appointment of receiver’s. New procedures were also developed like summons to order attendance of witnesses, oral examination of witness, discovery, hearing cases in English as opposed to Latin”. Equity was considered to be based on fairness and natural justice.

Courts combine
The system was gradually and slowly developed until 1875 when the courts were combined, however the law of equity and the common law was different.(Gerbic & Miller, 2010) Formal procedures were developed and its flexibility made it very popular. The issue of injunctions created complications when injunctions were issued by the chancellor, preventing the petitioner or the claimant to have the judgement served. This caused injustice to the judge’s judgement. Accordingly there was a conflict between the two courts in the Earl of Oxford’s case (1616)1 Rep Ch1, in which the decision favoured one party in the common court and then an injunction was issued by the court of equity holding that judgement. This issue was taken to the King and was directed to the Attorney General to solve this issue. The Attorney General decided that if and when there was a conflict between the two courts, the court of equity would be final. From that time both the courts started to work together.
In the seventeenth century, Lord Nottingham introduced new procedures and systems to the cases and by the nineteenth century Equity became the common law.
The Judicature Act 1873-1875 created that the common law and the equity would be administered by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was divided into many divisions like the Queen’s Bench Division, Chancery Division and the probate, Divorce and Admiralty. In the twentieth century there were lots of reviews in the principles since the common law began to collapse. “The Contractual Mistakes Act 1977, the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, and the Illegal Contracts Act 1970” ("Waikato Law Review," 2003)were important amendments which enabled the courts to distribute fair and just justice between parties and individual cases.(Info, n.d)

Reference:

Gerbic, Philippa, & Miller, Leigh. (2010). Understanding commercial law (7th ed.). Wellington, N.Z.: LexisNexis NZ.
Info, English. (n.d). Equity. from http://english.turkcebilgi.com/Equity+(law)
Mulholland, RD. (2001). Introduction to the New Zealand Legal System
Waikato Law Review. (2003). from http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/WkoLRev/2003/2.html
Webb, Duncan, Sanders, Katherine, Scott, Paul, & McDowell, Morag. (2010). The New Zealand legal system : structures and processes (5th ed.). Wellington, N.Z.: LexisNexis.

Question 2:
Issue:
1. Will Murdock Cruises liable for the damages occurred to the Second Chances fishing equipment?
(Or)
2. Is Murdock Cruises liable for the harm that occurred to the crew member’s broken arm?
Law:
It is clearly known that this accident is caused by negligence. As per the liability of Negligence Acts and the decision of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HC), Second Chance can take action.
Kristy had legal obligation to take care of the Murdock Cruises by breaching her duty by taking a call as per Mainguard Packaging Ltd v Hilton Haulage Ltd [1990] 1 NZLR 360 (HC) so owes the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has suffered some damage as per the Contributory Negligence Acts 1947; the Murdock Cruises is liable for 75% of the damage.
The injured crew member is entitled for treatment, expenses and losses of earning payment as per the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
Application:
As per the principles of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HC) Second Case can take action against Murdock Cruises because Kristy was distracted on the phone call with her boyfriend over the arrangement for a tour to Europe for her birthday which caused the accident, was a clear Negligence of Acts. Murdock Cruises being Kristy’s employer will be liable for the losses occurred in the incident.
Kristy may be able to argue that she was not the cause for the accident and it was Second Chance who causes the accident by not giving way to Murdock Cruises. However, Kristy had legal obligation to take care of Murdock Cruises by breaching her duty. Hence by the principle of Contributory Negligence Acts 1947, Murdock Cruises is liable for the 75% of the expenses of fishing equipment’s $5000 that is $3750.
The crew member is entitled for the treatment of his broken arm due to the collision for the treatment and medical expenses and for the lost earnings the Murdock Cruises will be liable as per the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
Conclusion:
1. Murdock Cruises will be liable for the damages occurred and the lost earnings by the loss of fishing equipment.
(Or)
2. Although the treatment is offered by the Accident Compensation Act 2001 the Murdock Cruises will be liable for the crew member’s earnings.

Question 3

Issue(s):
1. Can Bob Stanford take action on QC Software for his fee and loss occurred?
(Or)
2. Whether Ms Cortney is liable for the $ 7000.00 fee as agreed by them?

Law:
All contracts require serious intention to be legally binding, to determine whether the intention is present. The law uses presumptions which can be rebutted by evidence. In domestic situations the law presumes there was no legal intention for the agreement to be legally binding.
Applying the principles of Fleming v Beevers [1994] 1 NZLR 385 (CA) to the present case therefore indicates that Bob has the evidence of the written completed manual has the advantage of action against QC software for his fee of $ 7000.
Application:
Ms Cortney denied paying Bob, telling him that she did not intent the agreement to be binding and thought for granted, that it was a family favour. Though there was no serious intention to make a contract.
The test for frustration by Ms Cortney is not satisfied as there is an evidence of the computer manual written by Bob as per the principles of Fleming v Beevers [ 1994] 1 NZLR 385 (CA) .
The court may allow Bob to recover the $7000 and the loss occurred from Ms Cortney as per the rule of Fleming v Beevers.
Conclusion:
1. Ms Cortney may be liable for some or all of the expenses incurred to Bob.
(Or)
2. Ms Cortney will be liable for the $ 7000.00 fee that she agreed to pay Bob Stanford.