Talk:Maxims of equity

Seeking Consensus on Proposed Main Section Edit

Please provide your concerns, support, or other useful input. Proposed:
Maxims of equity are legal maxims that serve as a set of general principles or rules which are said to govern the way in which equity operates. They tend to illustrate the qualities of equity, in contrast to the common law, as a more flexible, responsive approach to the needs of the individual, inclined to take into account the parties’ conduct and worthiness. They have been developed by the English Court of Chancery and other courts that administer equity jurisdiction, including the law of trusts. Although the most fundamental and time honored of the maxims, listed on this page, are often referred to on their own as the 'maxims of equity' or 'the equitable maxims', it cannot be said that there is a definitive list of them. Like other kinds of legal maxims or principles, they were originally, and sometimes still are, expressed in Latin. Layman, Esq. (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Article quality

This article looks as if it were written for a page of a book or for a class. Maybe we can import the whole article into Wikiversity or Wikibooks. If not, what else to do with this article? The whole article is either a mess or a list of unverifiable maxims. --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

→→Agreed. Sentences such as "To complete the circle, one needs to understand that when a mortgagor fails to pay" and "This unsettling system had a negative impact on the willingness of lenders" (both in the =Equity abhors a forfeiture= section) and "Also: Equity" (in the =Equity does not require an idle gesture= section) are too conversational, as one might find in a book, or an article written as a series of musings by a single person. Since when is the Wiki standard inclusionary of colons after a single word or adjectives such as "unsettling"? The entire format seems - in my opinion - to be a cut and paste from a book or course syllabus, in which case it should be checked for copyright infringement. I found the line "Also: Equity will not compel a court to do a vain and useless thing." in a scribd document so its inclusion within this article without being clearly a quote is a little concerning. Alas, I can't check the citations on that scribd doc because I'm not a paid subscriber. --[Anonymous] 21:01, 19 January 2018 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.246.118 (talk)

References

Suggested improvements

This is a just a comment for anyone who is thinking of improving the article. It might read a little too categorically. There are examples where equity has, for instance, arguably perfected an imperfect gift - see Arden LJ's dictum in Pennington v Waine, which is in fact quoted in the article. The maxim that "equity follows the law" is also an unqualified one. The article quotes Cardozo J in Graf v Hope Building Corporation. In that same case, he says "equity follows the law, but not slavishly nor always".

I think it would be helpful to temper the language of the lead section a little to reflect these uncertainties. It is a bit of an overstatement to say that equity's maxims "govern" the way in which the law of equity operates. Equity is less like rules and more like values. These maxims also were not created or imposed by judges so much as discovered. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Quick add on: the number of maxims is also not settled. This article lists 20. Graham Virgo identifies 14 in Principles of Equity and Trusts (2018). If I remember correctly, Sarah Worthington sees just 8. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent incomplete attempt at rewriting

@Dawkin Verbier: Please complete your attempt at rewriting. Kaihsu (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2026 (UTC)