DarthTyranus

31.12.2022 00:54 •  Английский язык

Нужно до завтра, пересказ до 10 предложений на common law and statute law introduction an initial difficulty with the phrase common law is that it has a variety of meanings, with the correct one in any given context depending on that context. thus it may be contrasted with statute law, equity and civil law. for the moment, we will use the phrase common law in its most general sense of judge-made law, by way of contrast with statute law and delegated legisla tion. within our discussion of this meaning of the phrase, we will explain the origins and meaning of equity, leaving only the distinction with civil law to be dealt with briefly at the end of our discussion. however, as we shall see, the phrase common law may also be used in a narrower sense, in which it contrasts with equity. common law, equity, statute law and delegated legislation common law is that part of the law which is contained in the decisions of the courts, rather than being made by parliament. of course, an important part of the status of any system of law is that it must be binding. in the case of the common law, bindingness flows from the doctrine of binding prec- edent, which is one of the main topics discussed in chapter 7. historically, the common law originated in the king's courts. more par- ticularly, it emerged from the practice of the king's judges, who travelled round the country when administering the law, adopting what they consid- ered to be the best legal rules from each area and enforcing them in other areas as well. thus, at a time when communications were such that there could be wide variations between laws in different localities, the king's judges used their powers to minimise those variations and enforce a single set of laws that were common to the whole country. in other words, they created the common law. although, as we shall see in chapter 7, the modern version of the doctrine of binding precedent is surprisingly flexible, in earlier times the common law valued uniformity above flexibility. consequently, there were many situ- ations in which the common law lacked the flexibility to produce fair results in individual cases. it was to counter this tendency of the common law that the doctrines of equity emerged. equity originated in the office of chancery, whose head was the lord chancellor and whose function it was to issue the writers that were the docu- ments used to begin actions at common law. what happened was that the office of chancery began to introduce a more flexible system of rules, which operated alongside the rules of common law but were much more geared to producing results that were consistent with what was thought to be good conscience. this parallel system came to be called equity, and in due course its operation and development came into the hands of the lord chancellor's court, namely the court of chancery. to take a straightforward example of how the relationship between the common law and equity worked (and, indeed still does work), suppose that you agree to sell me an 'old master' painting, but you then decide not to go through with the deal and refuse to deliver the goods even though i am ready, willing and able to pay the price we have agreed. the only remedy the common law can offer me is damages. however, in cases like this, the subject matter of the contract is unique and therefore no amount of money will enable me to go out and buy an equivalent painting. equity, on the other hand, has developed a remedy (called specific performance) for cases like this. if i obtain an order for specific performance against you, you will be obliged to perform our contract and deliver the goods i have agreed to buy. if you fail to comply with the order, you will be in contempt of court and may be sent to prison. a moment's thought will show you that, since the whole purpose of having the two systems of common law and equity was to get different answers to the same question, it was inevitable that the courts of common law and chancery would find themselves at loggerheads. returning to the example we have already considered, if you are ordered to pay me damages at common law, and you comply with the order, that will be an end of the matter. however, if equity also orders you to perform the contract, and you fall to do so, you could be imprisoned for contempt of court.