The Incomplete Merger of Law and Equity

This class actually covered a number of different (but related) topics. We start with some of the procedural rules that “merged” law and equity (for example, SCRCP 8(e)) At the same time, we take a look at some of the fundamental differences between law and equity — and some of equity’s vast powers but also highly significant restrictions. The class ends with a look at the modern South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act — which proclaims that if something is truly “unfair” and in “commerce” it might result in a legal remedy of three times the actual damages plus attorney fees. In short, sometimes “unfair” triggers law, sometimes it triggers equity, and sometimes, the Court system cannot do a whole lot to even solve the problem at all. Welcome — to the mixed-up, complex, real world. No wonder it is fun to teach this stuff.



One Response to “The Incomplete Merger of Law and Equity”

  1. Donald Blaine-Bailey Says:

    Merger of Law & Equity is really stealthy encroachments upon & reverses the original understanding & purpose of both 13 State Constitutions & The Constitution for The united States of America, not to mention the Declaration of Independence & other “founding documents.”

    See State v. Bailey, 882 P.2d 57 (1994) 118 N.M. 466. The two,as the Court says: “interesting questions this case presents,” & “developing the law even more, now DOES give the judge authority to do what he/she did not have authority to do at the time this case was decided. It is called: “The Merger of Law and Equity and the development of the law.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: