- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
- Posts
Dear Mike,
I studied entire book and kit however one confusion is not going out of my mind. One thing is Common law which was developed following Norman conquest. Then developed Equity. Then using Common law and Equity principles the Statute is developed.However, in these times, judges give the decision inline with the Statue. Not referring Common Law and Equity (right? or may be i am wrong. Here i want to clear my mind). And if the Common Law and Equity is being referred in these times as well then why there was a need of statute. Moreover, as mentioned in the title that “Statue is not to alter existing common law”, then what would happen if there would be a conflict between these two. Judges would refer to what
Mike you are really helpful all the time. I know i may be asking non-sense but this is what my mind is not picking up.
No, you’re not talking nonsense. What we have is the situation where Common Law had developed (over centuries, as you correctly state) and then Statute is passed relating to the same area of potential dispute.
Consider the Sale of Goods Act from 1892. Goods had been bought and sold from even before Time Immemorial and Mercantile Law (Common Law) had developed to commonise the settling of disputes arising from a sale of goods
Along comes Parliament and codifies (puts into Statute) the Common Law that had been developed. The late 1800s saw some BIG pieces of Statute being passed (SoGs, Partnership 1890, Bills of Exchange 1892) and these are all good examples of Parliament putting into Statute form the matters previously subject to only Common Law
Does that answer it for you?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.