Equitable Doctrine & Maxims of Equity

Maxims of Equity

  1. DELAY DEFEATS EQUITIES
    Meaning
    A Latin term in this regard is “Vigilantibus, non dormentibus, jura subvenient.” which means “Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent”. So, if one sleeps on his rights, his rights will slip away from him. Legal claims are barred by statutes of limitation and equitable claims may be barred not only by limitation law but also by unreasonable delay, called laches.
  1. EQUALITY IS EQUITY
    Meaning
    Plato defined that “If you cannot find any other, equality is the proper basis.” This maxim is also explained as “equity delighteth in equality”, which means that as far as possible equity would put the litigating parties on an equal level so far as their rights and responsibilities are concerned.Justice Fry said, “When I say equality, I do not mean equality in its simplest form, but which has been sometimes called proportionate equity.”
  1. HE WHO COMES INTO EQUITY MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS
    Meaning
    Equity demands fairness not only from the defendant but also from the plaintiff. It is therefore said that “he that hath committed an inequity, shall not have equity.” While applying this maxim the court believed that the behavior of the plaintiff was not against conscience before he came to the court.
  1. EQUITY LOOKS TO THE INTENT RATHER THAN THE FORM
    Meaning
    Common law was very rigid and inflexible. It could not respond favourably to the demand of time. It regarded the form of a transaction to be more important than its substance. It looked to the very letter of the agreement and not the intention behind it. On the other hand, Equity looks to the spirit not to the letter, it looks to the intention of parties and not to the words.
  1. EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW
    Meaning
    The maxim indicates the discipline which the Chancery Courts observed while administering justice according to conscience. As has been observed by Jekyll. M.R: ‘The discretion of the court is governed by the rules of law and equity, which are not to oppose, but each, in turn, to be subservient to the other.” Maitland said, “Thus equity came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it, to supplement it, to explain it.” The goal of equity and law is the same, but due to their nature and due to historic accident they chose different paths. Equity respected every word of law and every right at law but where the law was defective, in those instances, these Common Law rights were controlled by recognition of equitable Rights. Snell therefore explained this maxim in slightly different way: “Equity follows the law, but not slavishly, nor always.”

  1. EQUITY LOOKS ON THAT AS DONE WHICH OUGHT TO BE DONE
    Meaning
    If someone undertakes an obligation for the other, equity courts look on it as done and as producing the same results as if the obligation had been actually performed. Equity courts therefore look to the acts of the person bound by his conscience and interpret and construe them in such a way that they amount to what ought to be done.
  1. EQUITY WILL NOT SUFFER A WRONG TO BE WITHOUT A REMEDY
    Meaning
    Where there is a right there is a remedy. This idea is expressed in the Latin Maxim ubi jus ibi remedium. It means that no wrong should go unredressed if it is capable of being remedied by courts. This maxim indicates the width of the scope and the basis of on which the structure of equity rests. This maxim imports that where the common law confers a right, it gives also a remedy or right of action for interference with or infringement of that right.
  1. EQUITY IMPUTES AN INTENTION TO FULFILL AN OBLIGATION Meaning Equity considered and estimated acts of parties. Thus where a person is under an obligation to do a certain act, and he does some other act which is capable of being regarded as an act in fulfillment of his obligation. In other words a person is presumed to do what he is bound to do.In Sowden v. Sowden, a husband covenanted with the trustee of his marriage settlement to pay to them £50,000 to be laid out by them in purchase of land in a particular area D. He, in fact, never paid the sum, but after marriage purchased the land at D in his own name, for £50,000. He died and could not bring the land into settlement. Equity courts construed that he purchased land to fulfill his obligation.
  1. HE WHO SEEKS EQUITY MUST DO EQUITY
    Meaning
    The maxim means that to obtain an equitable relief the plaintiff must himself be prepared to do ‘equity’, that is, a plaintiff must recognize and submit to the right of his adversary. Scriptures of Islam also inform us to be conscientious:Who when they take by measure from others, exact the full; Who when they take by measure from others, exact the full;But when they mete to them or weigh to them, minish…”

Equitable Doctrine

DOCTRINE OF PERFORMANCE

DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION

DOCTRINE OF ELECTION

DOCTRINE OF CONVERSION

The basis of this doctrine is the maxim ‘Equity looks on that as done which ought to be done’. • Introduced in the 18th Cent, to stop the unfairness of allowing trustees prejudicially to affect the interests of beneficiaries by postponing sales or purchase of land. • Thus it promotes justice; assist the owner of the subject matter of conversion in the accomplishment of his objective to distribute his property in accordance to his presumed intention.

• A person may not take a benefit and reject an associated burden or, choose between parts of a single transaction.
Birmingham v Kirwan (1805) • Lord Redesdale; “A person cannot accept and reject the same instrument”.

The basis of this doctrine is the maxim ‘Equity imputes an intention to fulfill an obligation’.
• Where a person is under an obligation to do one thing but does another, the doing of that other thing may be held to satisfy the legal obligation.

This doctrine is applicable much like the doctrine of satisfaction.
• Where a person is under an obligation to do one thing but does another, equity may still regard the performance of that thing as performance of the original obligation.

Cases on Equitable Doctrine

Fletcher v Ashburner (1779)
• “Nothing was better established than this principle, that money directed to be employed in the purchase of land, and land directed to be sold and turned into money are to be considered as that species of property into which they are directed to be converted”.

Re Edwards [1958]
Conditions for election: A (testator) attempts to devise a land by will to B. In actual fact, the land belonged to C, and not A. • However, in the same will, A also bequeathed £1000 to C. • C is in the position either to :


i) transfer the land to B and receive £1000; or
ii) keep his land and compensate B the value of the land should he choose to also keep the £1000.
iii)Intention on the part of A to dispose certain property to someone (B),
iv)The property is not A’s property i.e. someone else’s property (C), and
v)Benefit should be given to the true owner of the property (C).

Talbott v Duke of Shrewsbury (1714)
Where a testator owes money to a person, gives a legacy to that person which is either equal or exceeds the amount of debt owed, there is a presumption that the legacy extinguishes the debt.

Cases on Maxims of Equity

In Highwaymen case, two robbers were partners in their own way. Due to a disagreement in shares one of them filed a bill against another for accounts of the profits of robbery. Courts of equity do grant relief in case of partnership but here was a case where the cause of action arose from an illegal occupation. So, the court refused to help them.
The working of this maxim could be seen while giving the relief of specific performance, injunction, rescission or cancellation.

If A makes T trustee leaving 50,000 Taka to purchase a land for the use of B. T does not purchase the land and by the time, B dies leaving all immovable property to X and all movable property to Y. Now, who should get the 50,000 Taka? Equity in such cases would definitely regard the purchase of land which ought to have been made as made. The money thus goes to X.
The working of this maxim can be seen-
i) the doctrine of conversion
ii) Executory contracts
iii) doctrine of part performance