Baby praying mantis on the leaf of a lime tree
Copyright © 2020 by Dyarne Jessica Ward and Kathiresan Ramachanderam
Posts
Equity Summary
The origins of the law of equity date back to the period just after the Norman conquest of England in 1066. Prior to that the only law that existed, as far as the courts were concerned, was common law, and it strictly adhered to the principle of Stare Decisis, a Roman legacy which established the system of judicial precedent which is based on the principle that like cases should be decided in like manner. Strict adherence to the doctrine however deprived the law of any sort of flexibility, and it resulted in some unfair decisions, and equity, which in the normal sense of the word means fairness, stepped in to mitigate the harshness and the rigidity of the common law system and to make the law more flexible. Litigants who were denied justice started petitioning the king and the king would hear their pleas and make a decision based on his conscious, setting aside the common law, if he had to, in that particular instance. Equitable decisions do not create a binding precedent. ...
Equity XXIX
17) Equity is a shield and not a sword. As per the maxim equity is a defensive mechanism and not an offensive mechanism and an applicant seeks an equitable remedy when the applicant is deprived of something the applicant is genuinely entitled to and not otherwise for example when the doctrine of promissory estoppel is invoked. According to the doctrine, when one party makes a promise to another party and the second party relies on the promise and acts to his or her detriment than that promise is a valid promise and is a promise that is enforceable at law. Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Jessica Ward
Equity XXVIII
16) Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. With regards to gifts unless some form of consideration has been given equity will not intervene or compel the donor or his estate to make good on a gratuitous promise. There are however certain exceptions to this maxim for example the rule in Strong v Bird (1874) – where the donor intends to pass his property to another and maintains that intention until his death but for some reason or other fails to make the transfer during his lifetime, the property becomes vested in the intended donee as the donor’s executor, and the vesting of the property is deemed to be or is seen as completing the gift. Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Jessica Ward
The Othello syndrome and a crime of passion
The Othello Syndrome takes its name after the Shakespearean play Othello where Othello kills his beautiful wife Desdemona because he believed that she was unfaithful. In the play Desdemona never cheats on Othello but he thinks that she has and he murders her. The phrase in modern day crime is used in reference to husbands and male partners who kill their wives or partners, often in a fit of rage, because they believe them to be either unfaithful or disloyal. Does the Othello Syndrome differ from a crime of passion? The answer in short is yes. In a crime of passion the accused can kill either his or her spouse or his or her partner or the person that he or she is with. Both men and women can commit a crime of passion. The case of R v Cunningham (1981) tells us that the accused can claim that he or she committed a crime of passion in the hope of mitigating the crime or being given a lesser sentence. The defense, not that it is a recognized defense in the normal sense of th...
The Perfect Crime – II
In R v Thornton (1996) the victim was particularly abusive towards his wife and on the day in question he threw his wife out of the house after abusing her together with a suitcase filled with her clothes. She returned later that day and tried to patch things up and the victim was even more abusive towards her. She then went into the kitchen and grabbed hold of a kitchen knife and she tried to patch things up again but her husband continued to be abusive and finally she stabbed him in the stomach with the kitchen knife and killed him. She was charged with murder and at her trial she raised the defense of diminished responsibility but she did not raise the defense of provocation. The judge however did direct the jury on provocation. The jury convicted the accused for murder and the accused appeal. Her appeal was allowed on the grounds that she suffered from a syndrome called battered women’s syndrome. From the decisions in the above cases we can come to the conclusion tha...