Talk:Maxims of equity

message: This is an interesting subject that needs more work. Many remedies casebooks don't even list the maxims anymore, and many remedies profs don't recite them. Thus, I am grateful to whoever started this article with the handout materials and case citations. However, the information so far is incomplete in some explanations, and in my opinion, inadequately grounded in citation for wiki standards. I am trying to rework some of the explanations, and will soon provide authority for as much as possible. To the extent that my grammar is a bit unwiki, I welcome anyone to try to clear up what I've done or add their own input.
Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying to make some improvements

message: I just fixed two typos in this section, Today instead of Tay and latter instead of lat.  No biggie.  I'm concerned about the swinging pendulum commentary near the end of the paragraph.  It's not very encyclopedic, but lacking particular knowledge of the subject I'm loathe to remove it.  Does anyone have any references that could be used to support a resurgence in court favoritism for upholding foreclosures in the face of equitable suit?  --Dpowens 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Typos and Commentary in the Forfeiture Section

message: There are over 450 (mostly Greek / Roman) legal Maxims (with England's additions) that are just as wise and which %95 still valid and in use.  (not simply latin phrases intermixed)
The "equity maxims" ... many of the 450 maxims mention euqity but these 19 maxims actually describe "in what way we come forward to ask for equity".
user sven_nestle  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.128.215 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for addition 

message: Any maxim here which is not backed by a reference could be deleted by anyone. If someone has a list of maxims which is part of a good, citable source, then I encourage them to make a citation from it and paste the reference at least once into every section which presents a maxim. I have concern here that not all of the maxims listed meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Every maxim needs a reference

message: Please provide your concerns, support, or other useful input. Proposed: 
Maxims of equity are legal maxims that serve as a set of general principles or rules which are said to govern the way in which equity operates. They tend to illustrate the qualities of equity, in contrast to the common law, as a more flexible, responsive approach to the needs of the individual, inclined to take into account the parties’ conduct and worthiness. They have been developed by the English Court of Chancery and other courts that administer equity jurisdiction, including the law of trusts. Although the most fundamental and time honored of the maxims, listed on this page, are often referred to on their own as the 'maxims of equity' or 'the equitable maxims', it cannot be said that there is a definitive list of them.http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/uploads/M02_EDWA3458_10_SE_C02.pdf. - The maxims of equity Like other kinds of legal maxims or principles, they were originally, and sometimes still are, expressed in Latin.
Layman, Esq. (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking Consensus on Proposed Main Section Edit 

message: This article looks as if it were written for a page of a book or for a class. Maybe we can import the whole article into Wikiversity or Wikibooks. If not, what else to do with this article? The whole article is either a mess or a list of unverifiable maxims. --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article quality 

message: This is a just a comment for anyone who is thinking of improving the article. It might read a little too categorically. There are examples where equity has, for instance, arguably perfected an imperfect gift - see Arden LJ's dictum in Pennington v Waine, which is in fact quoted in the article. The maxim that "equity follows the law" is also an unqualified one. The article quotes Cardozo J in Graf v Hope Building Corporation. In that same case, he says "equity follows the law, but not slavishly nor always".
I think it would be helpful to temper the language of the lead section a little to reflect these uncertainties. It is a bit of an overstatement to say that equity's maxims "govern" the way in which the law of equity operates. Equity is less like rules and more like values. These maxims also were not created or imposed by judges so much as discovered. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick add on: the number of maxims is also not settled. This article lists 20. Graham Virgo identifies 14 in Principles of Equity and Trusts (2018). If I remember correctly, Sarah Worthington sees just 8. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested improvements