It has well established principles which govern the exercise of the discretion but these principles are flexible and adaptable. The aim of equity is to ‘do more perfect and complete justice’ than would be the result of leaving the parties to their remedies at common law. Equity developed as a result of the inflexibility of the common law. To deal with this a writ system was introduced in the 12th century.To
It also makes sure that there is a way for a will to be beneficial for a third party that is not mentioned on the face of the Will. The role equity plays in this scenario as well as its main purpose in law in general is to keep things fair. In this specific circumstance its paramount interest was to make sure to hinder the trustee form admitting fraud by not fulfilling his/her obligations to the third party, and the testator, by keeping whichever benefit for themselves instead of passing it on to the secret beneficiary. The basic issue with secret trust is the inability to justify it in certain circumstance. Whether it is a fully secret trust or a half secret trust this issue occurs.
The equal protection clause was interpreted as an equal application of all laws. It denied the states to discriminate in application of laws but followed the doctrine of separate but equal
The practitioner may give the family member a higher maintenance remedy that has a higher effectiveness than the remedies typically given in order to assure a recovery. The principle of need coincides with the principle of equality. What each individual needs may not necessarily be what each individual can afford. For example, elderly adults may not receive adequate government health insurance that covers a particular treatment compared to adults who may receive adequate health insurance under an employer that covers the same particular treatment. These principles are more in depth portions of the principle of distributive justice.
Whereby, trust is defined as the faith or belief that someone has to something or other people. Ethics and trust are really vital in digital scholarship. With the availability of Internet connection everywhere, people are ought to rely on the information provided from unknown sources not to mention from various websites. The sources of all the
THE PHILOSOPHY OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE SYSTEM Ashish Kumar Distributive Justice or Economic Justice or the Fair Share principle, as the name suggests, is basically concerned with the social and economic welfare of the citizens. It says that an equal society is that where there is a fair allocation of the material goods and services between all the sections of the society. John Rawls, the main theorist of Distributive Justice gives two basic principles of Fairness or Fair Share related to Distributive Justice. The Constitution of India, through Article 14, 15, 16, 38, 39, 39(A) enforces the principle of distributive justice. Distributive justice exists in a society where there exists no inequality, so the Indian constitution through these articles tries to remove the prevailing inequalities in the society.
As a result of this apparent antagonism between the two, intellectual property rights regime was considered to be creating monopolies to spur innovation, while the competition law eliminates monopolies. In other words, rightful owners of IPRs are granted temporary monopoly by the law to recover the cost incurred by them in research and development and innovation process. As a result, these owners can earn rightful and reasonable profits so to encourage them to engage in further innovation. It has been seen in time that both competition law and intellectual property rights both perform complementary roles in driving innovation in today’s technologically dynamic markets. However, competition law and intellectual property law are two different bodies of law having their independent and different area of
Equity assumed society had an obligation to provide a free education in a geographically accessible area and provide exposure to a common core curriculum. To be denied these things was to be treated inequitably. Whether or not the child chooses to benefit from this education is left up to the student and family. From the first glance this interpretation resembles the exact definition of equality stated above. In 1954 Brown v. Board of Education began to link equitable treatment to the results of the education a child received.
The trust ordinance refers to a relationship created at the direction of an individual, in which one or more persons hold the individual's property subject to certain duties to use and protect it for the benefit of others. Individuals may control the distribution of their property during their