20 Maxims of Law
Jeffrey Hackney argued that maxims are harmful rather than useful for understanding just principles: maxims of justice are at the origin of Latin expressions that embody just principles. There are many of these maxims and they could be quite inexhaustible. Fairness maxims are legal maxims that serve as a set of general principles or rules that are supposed to govern how fairness works. They tend to illustrate the qualities of justice as opposed to the common law as a more flexible and responsive approach to the needs of the individual, tending to take into account the behaviour and dignity of the parties. They were developed by the English Court of Chancery and other courts that manage jurisdiction over fairness, including trust law. Although the most basic and oldest maxims listed on this page are often referred to only as the “maxims of justice” or “the just maxims, the first just maxim is “justice enjoys equality” or justice is equality. Like other types of maxims or legal principles, they were original, and sometimes they still are, expressed in Latin. The same idea is expressed in other righteous maxims such as “justice helps the vigilante” and “justice does not favor the lazy.” Search for: `Maxims of Equity` in Oxford Reference » Maxims were originally quoted in Latin, and many Latin expressions are still familiar to lawyers in the early 2000s. The maxims were not written in a code organized or promulgated by legislators, but were passed down by generations of judges. As a result, the wording of a maxim may vary from case to case. For example, the general rule is that justice does not help a culprit. This maxim has been expressed in various ways: apart from a lively life in legal exams written by weaker candidates, most maxims do not play a major role in legal language today, and their main damage is to reduce the manifestations of justice to the level of mere gossip by their banality, thus devaluing the underlying consciousness.
 While they do not set a binding precedent in U.S. courts, the claims of fairness and the courts that preside over them are traditionally guided by the 20 maxims of justice, which are certainly convincing precedents. The 11th circuit was so friendly, recently 13 of those maxims in a spot in Slater v. U.s.. Steel Corp., 820 F.3d 1193, 1247 (2016), but of course, we are proud to compile a more complete list: However, according to Snell`s Equity, it is possible to summarize it in two maxims: fairness will not suffer injustice without being a remedy, and fairness acts in person. 1. Someone who seeks justice must do justice: this is “perhaps one of the most fundamental maxims of justice.” Institution v. Ness Energy Int`l, Inc., Case No. 10-1218-D (W.D. Oklahoma. 28 March 2012). Simply put, a party seeking a fair remedy from the court must be prepared to fulfill all its own obligations.
In conclusion, it was stated that the totality of these maxims can be combined into just two: “Justice will not suffer injustice” and “Justice acts in personam”. Needless to say, these maxims do not necessarily have to be absolute or global, but they convey the intention behind the courts of justice, which is ultimately the acquisition of justice. Short, concise statements that are used to determine the general principles that should flow from fairness. Although they are often inaccurate and subject to exceptions, they are often used to justify certain decisions and express some of the basic principles that have guided the development of equity. This work would continue to cover some of these maxims below. I hope that at the end of this work, you will have a good understanding that maxims are justice. Two maxims form the main foundations of justice: justice will not suffer injustice and justice acts in person. The first of these explains the whole purpose of justice, and the second emphasizes the personal nature of justice. Fairness takes into account the circumstances of the individuals in each case and creates a remedy that is directed to the person of the defendant, who must act accordingly to grant the plaintiff the specified remedy. Unless a law expands the powers of an equity court, it can issue decrees that only indirectly affect property and formulate them as decrees against individuals. These are said to be the two oldest maxims of fairness. Everyone agrees with them.
Note that the above list is not exhaustive, as there are many maxims of fairness. You may need hundreds of pages to fully analyze them. So we need to highlight some of the most important ones. A forfeiture is a total loss of a right or thing due to the failure to do anything as needed. A total loss is usually a fairly severe punishment. Unless a sanction is proportionate to the seriousness of the fault, it is too severe. For reasons of fairness and good conscience, a fair court will refuse inappropriate forfeiture. This maxim applies particularly strongly to land ownership, an interest that the law respects very much. Ownership of land should never be lost for a trivial reason – for example, a delay of a few days in closing a transaction to buy a home. In the case of Ipaye vs Aribisala (1930) 10 NLR. 10 The applicant`s mother bequeathed her property to him and to her brother.
Therefore, the common law doctrine of colocation applied to the community property in question. In the case of equity law, instead of suing for damages, one can take legal action for certain performance of the contract. This ensures that the contract continues to be performed instead of terminating it completely. However, this restriction does not apply in situations where the trustee is fraudulent. Nor does it apply to the recovery of property that a trustee has improperly converted into his own use. For example, p. 24 of the English Real Property Limitation Act of 1833 provides that an action for the recovery of rent or land on equity is subject to the same limitation period as that which applies in common law cases. Also S. Section 8 of the English Trustee Act 1888 limited the time limit within which actions for breach of trust could be brought. The case of Michael Arowolo v. Chief Titus Ifabiyi (2002) 2 SCNJ 65 is a good example.
In this case, the plaintiff borrowed money from the defendant in 1978 and used his real estate as a mortgage for the loan. Under the common law, whenever two or more people buy a property together, it is assumed that their ownership of the property would be covered by a joint tenancy. The consequences of this maxim and a fair conversion are important in that they affect the risk of losses in transactions. When the parties conclude a contract for the sale of real estate, it is assumed that the buyer has received a right of equity, which becomes a legal claim only after the conclusion of the transaction. It should be noted that in mustapha v SCOA (1955) 21 NLR 69, the Court concluded that in court, time is crucial in the following circumstances: the purpose of justice is to find a complete answer to the questions raised in a legal dispute. It will involve all necessary parties, balance their rights and issue a decree that should protect them all from further litigation on the subject. Whenever necessary, the court retains its jurisdiction to supervise the application of legal protection. For example, a lawsuit remains in effect as long as an injunction is in effect. Either party may return to court and request a review of the order if circumstances change.