McFarlane, B;
(2019)
Avoiding anarchy?
In: Turner, P and Goldberg, J and Smith, H, (eds.)
Equity and Law: Fusion and Fission.
(pp. 331-352).
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Preview |
Text
McFarlane - Avoiding Anarchy.book.chapter.pdf - Accepted Version Download (375kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Hohfeld argued that Maitland was wrong to consider that equity did not conflict with the common law. To Hohfeld, conflict between legal and equitable rules existed if the application of one would produce a result different from the application of the other. But Hohfeld’s own analysis shows this approach to conflict to be inadequate. On Hohfeld’s analysis, Maitland proves to be correct: when the forms of legal entitlements must be brought into account, it can be seen that the rules of law and equity in most cases indeed do not conflict. And those rules correspond to distinct purposes in law. This is demonstrated through analysis of the express trust and extended then to another area in which legal and equitable rules have been said to conflict – in the law of assignment.
| Type: | Book chapter |
|---|---|
| Title: | Avoiding anarchy? |
| ISBN-13: | 9781108431750 |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1017/9781108367820.014 |
| Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108367820.014 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | This version is the author accepted manuscript. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher’s terms and conditions. |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH > Faculty of Laws |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1566688 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
