Law and Equity
- Submitted by: thaps
- Views: 86
- Category: Other
- Date Submitted: 01/18/2016 03:40 PM
- Pages: 3
- Report this Essay
) Equity:
Part of the grounds for arguing in favor of the common law system over the codified system is its characteristically equitable qualities. Since antecedents are pursued in all cases, everyone gets the same treatment. This same legal procedure is administered to everyone in spite of their position or creed. Therefore, this system of going by antecedents which had hitherto been set usually leads to equity and fairness. This system of law also has the advantage over the codified system by offering protection to persons via the law of tort.
ii) Expedient:
Since decisions are predicated on previous rulings, it is much easier to pursue this procedure. There is an expectation on the part of people, as there is conformity in terms of the outcome to expect. The procedure is far more flexible and much more realistic as there no set, long drawn rules but real scenarios that have already been dealt with. This is a clear advantage over the codified system where the judges have follow and apply the rules of the code exactly.
iii) Efficient:
Since there is a premise on which the judgment will be made, a proper benchmark, the judicial procedure occurs much quicker. For this reason, it is much more efficient in its process in relation to the codified system which does not follow this process of a precedent based system. As the decisions made are premised on antecedents, they have a firmer basis. This is an obvious advantage over the common law as the codified system of law has to rely on the creation of rules and legislation rather using case laws to create future laws.
Disadvantages:
i) Perpetuation of bad decisions:
A major impediment of the common is the tendency to lead to perpetuity of bad decisions once a precedent has been set. If there is no amendment and the same ruling is applied, that bad decision will be subsist and will be perpetuated. Since the common law system revolves around following antecedents, it usually takes a long while for change...
Part of the grounds for arguing in favor of the common law system over the codified system is its characteristically equitable qualities. Since antecedents are pursued in all cases, everyone gets the same treatment. This same legal procedure is administered to everyone in spite of their position or creed. Therefore, this system of going by antecedents which had hitherto been set usually leads to equity and fairness. This system of law also has the advantage over the codified system by offering protection to persons via the law of tort.
ii) Expedient:
Since decisions are predicated on previous rulings, it is much easier to pursue this procedure. There is an expectation on the part of people, as there is conformity in terms of the outcome to expect. The procedure is far more flexible and much more realistic as there no set, long drawn rules but real scenarios that have already been dealt with. This is a clear advantage over the codified system where the judges have follow and apply the rules of the code exactly.
iii) Efficient:
Since there is a premise on which the judgment will be made, a proper benchmark, the judicial procedure occurs much quicker. For this reason, it is much more efficient in its process in relation to the codified system which does not follow this process of a precedent based system. As the decisions made are premised on antecedents, they have a firmer basis. This is an obvious advantage over the common law as the codified system of law has to rely on the creation of rules and legislation rather using case laws to create future laws.
Disadvantages:
i) Perpetuation of bad decisions:
A major impediment of the common is the tendency to lead to perpetuity of bad decisions once a precedent has been set. If there is no amendment and the same ruling is applied, that bad decision will be subsist and will be perpetuated. Since the common law system revolves around following antecedents, it usually takes a long while for change...