Equity was developed in order to overcome the inadequacies of common law. Equitable remedies are available in a number of areas where common law is either incapable of providing justice or is not faultless in providing justice to the individuals. The main purpose of equity jurisdiction is to support the existing laws. Equity was developed to propose principles that are either ignored by common law or not formally accepted in that set of law. Moreover, equity proposes certain remedies that are unavailable in common law. In certain circumstance, common law decisions or remedies are insufficient to provide justice to the innocent (Hudson, 2009). For instance, in the matters involving mortgages, where the lenders are to a piece of land as a security of the loan granted, the principles in equity and common law greatly distinguish from each other. Let’s assume that Angelina grants a loan of $5,000 to Joseph, after considering a piece of land as a security that worth $8,000. According to the contract, the land in question would be legally transferred on the name of the lender (Angelina), on the terms that she would retransfer the land on Josephs name if he repays the loan in the specified time. If Joseph fails to repay the loan in the specified time, common law gives no entitlement to Joseph for the land that was conveyed and the duty to repay the loan still exists. However, equity practices such situations in a different and more reasonable manner. According to the rules of equity, Joseph would be given another chance to repay the loan in a new specified time. If Joseph still fails to repay, the land which was let for security will be sold and the loan will be repaid. The additional amount would be given to Joseph as it belongs to him.
It is not just the matters of mortgages where equity provides a more reasonable and just decision but it also works better in many other areas. Equity and common law are not only different in terms of laws and