EQUITY HAS NO PLACE IN THE COMMON LAW.

 EQUITY HAS NO PLACE IN THE COMMON LAW.

As stated by Marie Belle Antoine "Equity is an important legal subject which is a separate and wide area of law." She also said that "one part of the Common Law is made up of the common law rules while the other comprises the rule of equity." Before the establishment of the law of equity, the common law was the only law that was practiced. 

The law of Equity was established many years ago in the British as a result of the king handing up his duties of listening to petition to the lord chancellor.  If a litigant was not satisfied with the ruling made by the common law, he or she would bring the matter to the king's court in the form of a Writ. However, the number of writs was limited and was categorized for certain cases.  The majority of the cases that were presented to the king did not fall in those categories and many petitions were being requested. Consequently, it became so much that the king left such matters to the lord chancellor, and thus it brought about the Court of  Chancery where decisions or justice was meted out based on equity or fairness. According to  Justice E Don and Standley E. Reid, this was because "the chancellor was generally a priest and not a lawyer". The Law of equity was made out of good faith and doesn't in any way undermines the common law but instead facilitates its shortcomings in cases where there has been an overuse or abuse of the law or when one feels like justice wasn't served.  However, as time passes by the law of Equity does has no place in the Common Law. This is because today the rules of equity are just as rigid as the common law, the court of equity had become not a court of conscience, but a court of law, and it does not reflect its original character.

   It was postulated by Marie Belle that " the rules of equity are just as rigid as the common law.  Equity was made to soften and temper the law but instead, it became the fixed body of law. The problem here is that equity was established to facilitate the shortcomings of the common law by the use of conscience or fairness and according to Marie Belle Antoine " equity is no longer viewed as being merely corrective to the common law".  The fact that Equity is a law, it no longer serves the purpose of facilitating the shortcomings of the common law because it will end in conflict. How can a law correct another law? As stated by Standley E. Reid equity was " never intended to interfere with the rules of the common law, the principles 'equity follows the law was created". Equity no longer follows the law instead equity is now a law. On the basis on which equity was established, the facts brought forward show that equity has no place in the common law.

    Additionally, the principle of equity does not reflect its original character.  Since the principle of equity has now become a law. It is difficult for it to possess certain qualities. Marie Belle Antoine posits that "the court of law had become not a court of conscience, but a court of law".  What is Equity if it does not possess its main feature Conscience?. It makes no sense and makes the principle of equity void. Thus the reason why it has no place in the common law.  It does not seek to uphold its responsibilities for which it was once created by the lord chancellor.

Conclusively,