The Special equity relating to wives whom act as guarantors of their husband’s debt was refined by Dixon J who gave the leading judgment in the case of Yerkey v Jones. The essence of the principle was that if a wife who is the surety of her husband’s debt doesn’t understand essential information, due to the fact that the creditor has relied on the husband to inform his wife, and not dealt with her personally, the wife has a prima facie right to have the debt set aside. The principle has faced scrutiny’s about being 'discriminatory' , that it patronizes married women as well as failing to provide equal protection to both sexes. However, in the High Court case of Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd the principle in Yerkey v Jones was revitalized by expanding the doctrine of unconscionability to include a special disability, suffered by a wife who acted as guarantor upon the circumstances in which the special equity principle applies. To reach their decision, elements of the special equity were applied in Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd.
A Lack of Tangible benefit and understanding
An important element of the special equity established in Yerkey v Jones is that there is no physical benefit to the wife from the transaction. In Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd in applying the equitable principle, the trial judge found Mrs Garcia as a volunteer who, despite being the director and shareholder of her husbands company, had nothing to gain directly or even indirectly from the transaction she guaranteed. In application of the special equity Mrs Garcia gained no real financial benefit from entering into the transaction and that any benefit for Mrs Garcia to gain as a guarantor would depend on remaining on good relations...
... middle of paper ...
... concluded on this basis that the court was not bound to apply the 'precedential strait-jacket' of Yerkey v Jones as a legal principle, He disagreed with the “equitable presumption ” expressed by Dixon J that catered for only married women, he instead proposed a broader principle should exist not confined to one group. Despite his judgment, The Majority of the High Court judges endorsed the principle and applied it to the case to reach a decision in favour of Mrs Garcia, and her entitlement to equitable relief. The majority found that because of the marked number of women in relationships with disparities between parties, Yerkey v Jones as an authority should be considered. The decision in Garcia provides High Court endorsement for the special equity, which will provide legality to protect those within a domestic relationship, who take on commercial matters.
In conclusion, "To strive for justice, one must be a person of principles. There is no single principle that one can use to achieve justice in the resolution of legal disputes." This is true because one must use a wide array of principles that come from moral and legal perspectives in order to gain a resolution. Unfortunately society has deemed it necessary to incorporate social stratification into some of these principles. The law tends to have more leniencies to those who have higher positions in society. With as many classes as our society today, it is impossible to find a jury of peers. Each person has their own idea of cultural norms, legal and moral principles, and a socio-class in which they belong to. Therefore, I contend that social stratification, whether it is between races, or economical levels, will always have some role in legal decisions.
As the issue is examined from the view of social justice, it appears that women are still not at the equal level that Mills proposed in this bill in Parliament. While women are entitled to the basic human rights of employment, land and business ownership and voting, there remains an inequality in expectations for an adult female. These expectations are garnered from long-standing traditional views held by a large portion of society that will take many years to eradicate.
The decision in Equuscorp is significant, as it has made clear several principles that were once ambiguous under Australian law. It ratifies that restitutionary remedies are unavailable for a claim for money had and received where recovery would reduce coherence in the law. Furthermore, Equuscorp has confirmed that a bare cause of action can be assigned where the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in its enforcement.
Imagine Kirsty and Marc, a young couple who resort to robbing a house in a desperate attempt to make money. They are caught, charged with the same crime and given the same sentence, except for one thing: the male dominant world we live in does not stop at the courtroom door. Marc is sent to a medium security prison one hour from his family with every opportunity to earn his way into a minimum-security facility. He spends his days learning to cook in the kitchenette and has access to basic necessities like aftershave or hairspray. Meanwhile, Kirsty walks into her frigid six-by-ten foot cell with bars for a door, a toilet in plain view and not a trace of sunlight. She is twelve hours from home with no hope of changing location since there is nowhere else to go. The stories of rapes, beatings and riots told by her new neighbours are endless. Kirsty realizes that the only way for her to survive this place is to oppose nature and forget what it is to feel. This is discrimination against women as they are penalized more severely than men for committing less crime. How can women strive for equality when they cannot attain justice in the justice system itself? The controversy over the gender bias goes beyond the "too-few-to-count" syndrome as Sally Armstrong calls it, it is a question of women's constitutional right to be treated equally.
In Palgo Holdings v Gowans , the High Court considered the distinction between a security in the form of a pawn or pledge and a security in the form of a chattel mortgage. The question was whether section 6 of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996 (NSW) (‘the 1996 Pawnbrokers Act’) extended to a business that structured its loan agreements as chattel mortgages. In a four to one majority (Kirby J dissenting) the High Court found that chattel mortgages fell outside the ambit of section 6 of the 1996 Pawnbrokers Act. However, beyond the apparent simplicity of this decision, the reasoning of the majority raises a number of questions. Was it a “turning back to literalism” as Kirby J suggested, or was it simply a case where the court declares that parliament has missed its target?
Herring J., ‘The Human Rights Act and the welfare principle in family law – conflicting or complementary?’ [1999] C.F.L.Q.11 (3), 223-235
Milligan, S. (2013). Equality in the Justice System. U. S. News Digital Weekly, 5(34), 5. Retrieved from EBSCO Publishing.
It has been generally acknowledged that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel has much in common with common intention constructive trusts, i.e. those that concern the acquisition of an equitable interest in another person’s land. In effect, the general aim is the recognition of real property rights informally created. The similarity between the two doctrines become clear in a variety of cases where the court rely on either of the two doctrines. To show the distinction between the doctrines, this essay will analyse the principles, roots and rationale of both doctrines. With reference to the relevant case law it will be possible to highlight the subtle differences between the doctrines in the cases where there seems to be some overlap. Three key cases where this issue surfaced were the following: Lloyds Bank Plc v. Rosset (1991), Yaxley v. Gotts (1999) and Stack v. Dowden (2007). This essay will describe the relevant judgements in these cases in order to show the differences between the two doctrines.
The American Association of University Women (AAUW) has long fought to end wage discrimination. Despite the Equal Pay Act and many improvements in women’s economic status over the past 40 years, wage discrimination still persists. AAUW continues to believe that pay equity—economic equity—is a simple matter of justice and strongly supports initiatives that seek to close the persistent and sizable wage gaps between men and women. The effects of pay inequity reach far. According to a 1999 study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and the AFL-CIO, based on U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor statistics, women who work full time earn just 74 cents for every dollar men earn. That equals $148 less each week, or $7,696 a year. Women of color who work full time are paid even less, only 64 cents for every dollar men earn—$210 less per week and $11,440 less per year.
When developing a valuation for Richards Building Supply Co, there is key aspects of the prevailing practices and procedures used by financial theorists and valuation consultants to the assessment of cost of capital in order to apply it as a present value discount rate in a traditional present value model. The main structure of business valuation is cost of capital. Key statement states “Value today always equals future cash flow discounted at the opportunity cost of capital (google.com)”. When defining Cost of capital “refers to the opportunity cost of making a specific investment. It is the rate of return that could have been earned by putting the same money into a different investment
...udes by stating in it’s opinion for Goesart v. Cleary 1948, that “Michigan could, beyond question, forbid all women from working behind a bar” (Goldstein 102 ). However, in 1976 the Supreme Court “refused to approve laws which were based on archaic and overbroad generalizations or on old notions of role typing” (Mezey 19). Clearly, great strides have been taken towards anti stereotypical legislation, in roughly a quarter of a century. Legal equality for women is in large part due to the Women’s Rights Project’s litigation of the nineteen seventies and the legal genius of Ruth Bader Ginsburg who made the Court scrutinize sex Discrimination cases much more closely. The result is that the Supreme Court must “test policies and practices by asking whether they integrally contribute to the maintenance of an underclass or a deprived position because of gender” (Ginsburg 20).
-Equity: seen over by the Chancery Court; designed to give relief from strict decisions made by the common law
The legal issue of constitution of trusts is very important, judicial decisions over the years on cases where trusts were not properly constituted indicates that constitution of trusts could be quite complex and must be very cautiously done by a property owner as a simple factor could make his trust void. An express trust is completely constituted either by effectively transferring property to trustees or by effectively declaring a trust. In case of personal property, the declaration of the trust may be put in writing; however, equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. It is only when the trust is constituted that it is binding on the settlor. The long-standing idea that equity will not perfect an imperfect gift can be traced back to the 19th century cases of Ellison v Ellison and Milroy v Lord , and was further emphasized in the 20th century in the case of Re Fry .
Equity is frequently referred to as a supplement to the common law. Cruzon defines Equity as a system of law developed by the court of chancery in parallel with the common law. It was designed to complement it, providing remedies for situations that were unavailable at Law. Because of this, Equity provided a dimension of flexibility and justice that was often times lacking because of the common law’s rigidity. This rigidity stems from the fact that, while courts sometimes altered their jurisdictions and procedures, the fundamental premises and noticeable forms of the common law went largely unchanged between the 13th and 19th centuries.
We have a right to equal well-paid employment, to equal opportunities. The right to vote is an important weapon. And now the Family Code has been passed, restoring to the most humble of women the dignity that has so often been trampled upon. (Bâ 61)