This document summarizes several cases related to common law and equity in the UK legal system. It discusses two cases, Egerton V Harding (1974) and New windsor corp V Mellor (1974), that established local customs under common law. It also mentions the 1615 case of Earl of Oxford where the king ruled that equity should prevail over common law in conflicts between the two. The document then summarizes three cases illustrating maxims of equity: Berry V Berry showed the intention maxim, D&C Builders V Rees involved the clean hands maxim, and Leaf V Internatinal Galleries demonstrated the delay defeats equity maxim.
This document summarizes several cases related to common law and equity in the UK legal system. It discusses two cases, Egerton V Harding (1974) and New windsor corp V Mellor (1974), that established local customs under common law. It also mentions the 1615 case of Earl of Oxford where the king ruled that equity should prevail over common law in conflicts between the two. The document then summarizes three cases illustrating maxims of equity: Berry V Berry showed the intention maxim, D&C Builders V Rees involved the clean hands maxim, and Leaf V Internatinal Galleries demonstrated the delay defeats equity maxim.
This document summarizes several cases related to common law and equity in the UK legal system. It discusses two cases, Egerton V Harding (1974) and New windsor corp V Mellor (1974), that established local customs under common law. It also mentions the 1615 case of Earl of Oxford where the king ruled that equity should prevail over common law in conflicts between the two. The document then summarizes three cases illustrating maxims of equity: Berry V Berry showed the intention maxim, D&C Builders V Rees involved the clean hands maxim, and Leaf V Internatinal Galleries demonstrated the delay defeats equity maxim.
Egerton V Harding (1974) The court decided that there was a customary duty to fence land aganist cattle straying from the common. New windsor corp V Mellor (1974) Local authority was prevented from building on land because the local people proved there was a custom that they had the right to use the land for lawful sports. Equity prevails in conflict between Equity V Common Law Earl of Oxford (1615) King ruled that equity should prevail. Equity Maxims Berry V Berry Both parties made a contract on deed.In common law a deed can only be amended through another deed only,but in this case a deed was amended on simple paper. (Intention) D&C Builders V Rees Parties made a contract of some repair.Rees paid 250 pounds out of 732 pounds in advance and once the work was done, Taking advantage of bad financial position of the company Rees offered 300 pounds in full settlement of dept declaring the work substandard. R&C builders accepted the offer reluctantly and then sued Rees,Rees requested the court to invoke equitable estopples but the court refeused to do so because Rees did not do equity. (Equity must come with clean hands) Leaf V Internatinal Galleries A painting was sold to Mr.Leaf which was considered by both parties of constable.Five years later Mr.Leaf came to know that painting was not of constable. Mr Leaf sued I.Galleries but court refused to uphold the case due to prolonged delay. (Delay defeats equity)