We Do this at Common Law But that in Equity

Posted: 29 Feb 2008

See all articles by Andrew Burrows

Andrew Burrows

Nottingham University Business School (NUBS)

Abstract

This article argues that lawyers are not doing enough to eradicate the needless differences in terminology used, and the substantive inconsistencies, between common law and equity. In developing this argument, three categories within English private law are recognized. First, where common law and equity co-exist coherently, and where the historical labels of common law and equity remain useful terminology. Second, where common law and equity co-exist coherently but there is nothing to be gained by adherence to those labels which could, and should, be excised at a stroke. And third, where common law and equity do not co-exist coherently and a change in the law, albeit often only a small change, is needed to produce a principled product. As a general illustration of what the third category comprises, and what fusion requires, one wide-ranging and practically very important area within the third category is focused on, namely monetary remedies for civil wrongs.

Suggested Citation

Burrows, Andrew John, We Do this at Common Law But that in Equity. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 1-16, 2002, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=821632

Andrew John Burrows (Contact Author)

Nottingham University Business School (NUBS) ( email )

Jubilee Campus
Wollaton Road
Nottingham, NG8 1BB
United Kingdom

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
2,175
PlumX Metrics