Legal Definitions - ex equitate

Ex equitate (pronounced "eks ek-wih-TAH-tee") is a Latin term meaning "according to principles of fairness and justice." It refers to situations where a court or legal system makes decisions based on what is fair and right, rather than strictly following rigid legal rules or precedents, especially when those rules would lead to an unjust or unconscionable outcome. This concept is rooted in the historical development of equity law, which emerged to soften the harshness of strict common law by allowing judges to consider the unique circumstances and moral implications of a case.

Here are a few examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Informal Property Agreement

  Imagine two neighbors, Sarah and Tom. Sarah allows Tom to build a small shed on a corner of her property, near the shared fence, because his own yard is too small. They have a verbal agreement that Tom can use that space indefinitely. Tom spends a significant amount of money and effort building a high-quality shed and landscaping around it. Years later, Sarah decides to sell her house and, realizing the shed slightly encroaches on her property, demands Tom remove it immediately, even though it would be costly and difficult for him.

  How "ex equitate" applies: Strictly speaking, the land belongs to Sarah, and she has the legal right to demand the shed's removal. However, a court applying principles ex equitate might consider the long-standing informal agreement, Tom's significant investment based on that understanding, and the potential hardship of forcing him to remove the shed. The court might rule that Sarah must compensate Tom for the value of the shed or even grant Tom a permanent right to use that small strip of land, because it would be unfair to allow Sarah to revoke the privilege without considering Tom's reliance and investment, which she implicitly encouraged.

• Example 2: Minor Contract Breach with No Harm

  A small business owner hires a freelance graphic designer to create a new logo and branding package. The contract specifies a delivery date of June 1st. Due to a sudden, severe family emergency, the designer delivers the final files on June 3rd. The business owner suffers no financial loss or inconvenience from this two-day delay, as they weren't planning to launch the new branding until July.

  How "ex equitate" applies: Technically, the designer breached the contract by missing the deadline. A strict interpretation of the contract might allow the business owner to demand a discount or even refuse payment. However, a court acting ex equitate would likely consider that the breach was minor, caused by unforeseen circumstances, and resulted in no actual harm or damages to the business owner. The court would probably rule that the designer should be paid the full amount, as it would be unjust to penalize them severely for a technical breach that had no negative impact, prioritizing fairness over a rigid application of the contract terms.

• Example 3: Imperfectly Executed Will

  An elderly individual drafts a will clearly stating their wishes for their assets to be divided equally between their two children. They sign the will in front of one witness, believing that was sufficient. After their passing, it's discovered that the law in their jurisdiction requires two witnesses for a will to be legally valid. There is no doubt about the deceased's intentions or that the will was genuinely created by them.

  How "ex equitate" applies: Under a strict interpretation of the law, the will might be deemed invalid due to the technical flaw of having only one witness. This would mean the estate would be distributed according to intestacy laws (as if there were no will), which might not align with the deceased's clear and documented intentions. A court applying principles ex equitate might choose to uphold the will despite the technical defect, especially given the clear evidence of the deceased's true intent and the absence of any suspicion of fraud. This decision would prioritize ensuring the deceased's wishes are honored, valuing fairness and the spirit of the law over a rigid adherence to a procedural technicality that doesn't affect the underlying truth of the document.