Injunctions and Specific Performance †Free Samples to Students

Quesstion: Discuss about the Injunctions and Specific Performance. Answer: Introduction: Law related to equity is based on the precedent, and the rules are developed from previous situations which they have deal with. However, there are number of people who disagree with the changing laws and law of equity and the rules that have been accepted by previous judges who result in precedent and now known as maxims. These maxims are used by Courts as guidelines. This essay states the equity maxim Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy with different case laws. Subsequently, this maxim is concluded with brief conclusion. Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy: Maxims are considered as body of law which is developed in way of equity and it also help the way through which equity operates. It must be noted that these maxims are not compulsory in nature and it applies on the discretion of Court. Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy is the maxim which is developed by common law, and it had no legal remedies but only monetary damages. Maxims must be treated as caution in regards to present law, and it is mainly used by beneficiaries of a trust whose rights were recognized as common law. Under this maxim, equitable remedies such as injunctions and specific performance are given[1]. In case Hussey v Palmer 1972, [2]Lord Denning attempts to alter this maxim which becomes unsuccessful. While seeking equitable relief, person who has been wronged has the stronger hand, and if person has stronger hand than he is the one who has capacity to ask for legal remedy hat is judicial relief. In equity the main form of remedy is usually given is specific performance and injunction. These are some superior remedies who administered at common law such as damages. For this Latin legal maxim is ubi jus ibi remediam. Case law which deals with this maxim is Ashby v. White 13 End P. 253[3]. In this case, court stated when law clothes a man with a right then it also provides different way through which person gets that right and remedies, and co-exist and mere attribution related to legal rights without remedies are meaningless. It must be noted that, this maxim ubi Jus ibi remedium allowed the chancellor to intervene in the administration of the justice for the purpose of giving relief by common law and also help the litigant by offering facilities in lieu of evidence and the procedure which usually not adopted by Court. Conditions related to Maxim: Following are some conditions which are related to maxim: If any party lost his right or waived his right because of his own mistake then this maxim is not applicable. This maxim will not apply if there is any moral infringement and becomes incapable of enforcement. Limitation related to Maxim: Following are some limitations which are related to this Maxim: Both right and remedy must be I the jurisdiction of common law. Court does not have authorization to put question mark on acts of state. Non-Application of Maxim: In following cases this maxim will not applied: This maxim is not applied when there is any breach related to moral right because equity only helps when legal right of the person is breached and not moral right. When jurisdiction of common law Courts are there then this Maxim is not applied. This maxim is not applied when there is negligence on part of plaintiff. After considering above facts, it is clear that Equity Courts are the courts of natural justice, and whenever any right is infringed then remedy is available for that infringement. In other words, there is always a remedy for wrong. Only those rights which were recognized by the law will be enforced by the Court. This concept of law is recognized in Ubi Jus ibi Remedium which is considered as whole crux of jurisdiction of equity. It expressed that every right of person will be enforced and wrong act is redressed by equity. However, it must be noted that if such right is recognized by common law then no relief is granted by equity[4]. Conclusion: After concluded, it is clear that basic idea behind this maxim is no wrong should be underdressed if Court has authorization to redress by Court. When common law provides any right then it also provides remedy for enforcing that right but there is some limitation also it does not provide remedies for all wrongs. Bibliography Law Teacher. The Law Of Equity, https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/property-trusts/the-law-of-equity.php, Accessed on 5th October 2017. You are law. 20 Maxims of Equity The Heart of Winning, https://www.youarelaw.org/20-maxims-of-equity-the-heart-of-winning/, Accessed on 3rd October 2017. Hussey v Palmer 1972 Ashby v. White 13 End P. 253.