Talk:Maxims of equity

Trying to make some improvements

This is an interesting subject that needs more work. Many remedies casebooks don't even list the maxims anymore, and many remedies profs don't recite them. Thus, I am grateful to whoever started this article with the handout materials and case citations. However, the information so far is incomplete in some explanations, and in my opinion, inadequately grounded in citation for wiki standards. I am trying to rework some of the explanations, and will soon provide authority for as much as possible. To the extent that my grammar is a bit unwiki, I welcome anyone to try to clear up what I've done or add their own input. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Typos and Commentary in the Forfeiture Section

I just fixed two typos in this section, Today instead of Tay and latter instead of lat. No biggie. I'm concerned about the swinging pendulum commentary near the end of the paragraph. It's not very encyclopedic, but lacking particular knowledge of the subject I'm loathe to remove it. Does anyone have any references that could be used to support a resurgence in court favoritism for upholding foreclosures in the face of equitable suit? --Dpowens 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

request for addition

There are over 450 (mostly Greek / Roman) legal Maxims (with England's additions) that are just as wise and which %95 still valid and in use. (not simply latin phrases intermixed)

The "equity maxims" ... many of the 450 maxims mention euqity but these 19 maxims actually describe "in what way we come forward to ask for equity".

user sven_nestle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.128.215 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Expert attention request

• There is only one reference in a standard format. There are some references to case law and some references to secondary sources, but these need to be much tighter (with page numbers etc.) so it is clear where and how (and why) the maxims of equity are and were applied.
• The context is almost completely lacking. When were these maxims created? Why? Are they still all relevant now? Are they relevant in different jurisdictions?
• Where has this list of maxims come from? When was it created? Is it the standard list? Are there other lists?
  

Thanks, merlin --Merlinme (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Back in the day, I believe it is correct to say that lawyers were taught that the maxims evolved over time. They were created, either wholly or in part, in an attempt to resolve individual cases - cases in which the law (as applied in the law courts) failed to provide adequate relief in the view of the suing party, and, ultimately, in the view of the Crown or the government. They are still relevant to the extent that they are still followed. Some lesser maxims may have fallen away due to changes in notions of substantial justice or changes in the law which served to offer more adequate relief than had previously been the case. The effect of some may have changed during the process of "unifying" the court systems (i.e., merging the previously separate courts of equity and courts of law into one unified system in which all law and equity actions could be pursued), for instance, at the federal level in the United States and in many, if not all, of the several states. They should remain relevant in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States which have legal systems built upon the English legal system and tradition. The maxims which are listed came from the Chancery Courts themselves and from the work of commentators and scholars and professors of law who distilled the maxims from the work of the Courts. There may be different lists - lists which differ because of the differing opinions of those examining the cases.

For a very brief back-up to this answer (with lots of room for inference on the part of the reader), one could consult this link, specifically, the section under the heading "Historical Background." For a truly exhaustive examination of the subject of Equity, one could consult the material found at this link to a treatise found on the Internet Archive. CAUTION: This one is a whopper. In the upper left canton of the screen, click on "See Other Formats" to choose among some different ways to view the treatise. If one does this, one can note that the Internet Archive claims this treatise falls outside copyright protection. NorthCoastReader (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Every maxim needs a reference

Any maxim here which is not backed by a reference could be deleted by anyone. If someone has a list of maxims which is part of a good, citable source, then I encourage them to make a citation from it and paste the reference at least once into every section which presents a maxim. I have concern here that not all of the maxims listed meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus on Proposed Main Section Edit

Please provide your concerns, support, or other useful input. Proposed:
Maxims of equity are legal maxims that serve as a set of general principles or rules which are said to govern the way in which equity operates. They tend to illustrate the qualities of equity, in contrast to the common law, as a more flexible, responsive approach to the needs of the individual, inclined to take into account the parties’ conduct and worthiness. They have been developed by the English Court of Chancery and other courts that administer equity jurisdiction, including the law of trusts. Although the most fundamental and time honored of the maxims, listed on this page, are often referred to on their own as the 'maxims of equity' or 'the equitable maxims', it cannot be said that there is a definitive list of them. Like other kinds of legal maxims or principles, they were originally, and sometimes still are, expressed in Latin. Layman, Esq. (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Article quality

This article looks as if it were written for a page of a book or for a class. Maybe we can import the whole article into Wikiversity or Wikibooks. If not, what else to do with this article? The whole article is either a mess or a list of unverifiable maxims. --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

→→Agreed. Sentences such as "To complete the circle, one needs to understand that when a mortgagor fails to pay" and "This unsettling system had a negative impact on the willingness of lenders" (both in the =Equity abhors a forfeiture= section) and "Also: Equity" (in the =Equity does not require an idle gesture= section) are too conversational, as one might find in a book, or an article written as a series of musings by a single person. Since when is the Wiki standard inclusionary of colons after a single word or adjectives such as "unsettling"? The entire format seems - in my opinion - to be a cut and paste from a book or course syllabus, in which case it should be checked for copyright infringement. I found the line "Also: Equity will not compel a court to do a vain and useless thing." in a scribd document so its inclusion within this article without being clearly a quote is a little concerning. Alas, I can't check the citations on that scribd doc because I'm not a paid subscriber. --[Anonymous] 21:01, 19 January 2018 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.246.118 (talk)

References

Suggested improvements

This is a just a comment for anyone who is thinking of improving the article. It might read a little too categorically. There are examples where equity has, for instance, arguably perfected an imperfect gift - see Arden LJ's dictum in Pennington v Waine, which is in fact quoted in the article. The maxim that "equity follows the law" is also an unqualified one. The article quotes Cardozo J in Graf v Hope Building Corporation. In that same case, he says "equity follows the law, but not slavishly nor always".

I think it would be helpful to temper the language of the lead section a little to reflect these uncertainties. It is a bit of an overstatement to say that equity's maxims "govern" the way in which the law of equity operates. Equity is less like rules and more like values. These maxims also were not created or imposed by judges so much as discovered. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Quick add on: the number of maxims is also not settled. This article lists 20. Graham Virgo identifies 14 in Principles of Equity and Trusts (2018). If I remember correctly, Sarah Worthington sees just 8. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)