What's the difference between the Common Law and Equity?

Question

I'm Argentinian and we live under the Continental or Civil Law. I need to sit for an exam on Commercial Translation and have to explain all the differences between Common Law and Equity. Maybe you, English-native speakers, can help me!
I'd really appreciate it!

Answer 1

Hello Paola!! Orignally, Common Law was case law, made by judges or deriving from statute or custom.  At times, this would lead to injustice, and an appeal would be made to the King.  He would devolve the duty of hearing cases to his Lord Chancellor, who would be fairer than the older type of remedy. Out of this came a code of law which allowed greater innovation.  For example, common law could only award damages.  Equity could order specific performance, or issue and injunction preventing something and jailing defalters for contempt.  Similarly, in common law there is no room for trust, even though Uses have been around since feudal times.  As you can imagine, this would have made the operation of mortgages a little tricky!!

Until the Judicature Act of 1873, Common Law and Equity cases were heard on appeal in different courts.  Since that date, the two codes have virtually been combined.

Good luck.

Answer 2

I spent three years in law school in the U.S., and even then this is kind of a difficult question.  If you wanted a very long answer, going back to religious courts in 14th century england, I could give you one, but I'm not sure how helpful it would be.

Start here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#…

The main thing you probably want to know is that, at least in the U.S., the distinction between common law and equitable courts is no longer existence.  I believe that everywhere in the U.S. these have "merged" into one system.  The historical underpinnings are still relevant in terms of what defenses are applicable, what remedies are available in court, whether one has a right to a jury trial, etc., but the formal distinction between the two is no longer relevant.  For instance, in federal court in the united states, one is entitled to a jury trial on claims which are similar to early common law,  but not for claims that are based on early equitable (equity) causes of action.  Depending on how important your exam is, and how in detail they are going to test this, you might need to dig deeper.

Answer 3

Both are areas of unwritten law interpreted through case law. It might be argued that Equity is part of Common Law, but the answer you have had about interpretation is probably the most accurate brief answer you are going to get. Even lawyers do not always understand the difference after years of study.

Answer 4

Was that the actual question?  Or was the question asking about the difference between common law remedies and equitble remedies?

Best way to understand equity is to look at the history, which is actually quite interesting.