Legal Definitions - natural equity

Natural equity refers to principles of fairness, justice, and right conscience that are considered inherent and universal, independent of specific written laws or statutes. It represents a sense of what is fundamentally right and fair, often invoked to temper the strict application of legal rules when such an application might lead to an unjust or unconscionable outcome.

Here are some examples illustrating natural equity:

• Imagine two neighbors, Mr. Henderson and Ms. Chen, who have shared a driveway for thirty years, even though the entire driveway technically sits on Mr. Henderson's property. There's no formal written agreement or easement. When Mr. Henderson sells his house, the new owner, Ms. Davis, decides to erect a fence down the middle of the driveway, preventing Ms. Chen from accessing her garage. While Ms. Davis might have a strong legal claim based on property deeds, a court might consider natural equity. It would recognize the long-standing, informal arrangement that was mutually beneficial and fair, and might rule that Ms. Chen has a right to continue using the driveway, despite the lack of formal documentation, because it would be inherently unfair to disrupt such a long-established understanding without cause.

• Consider a small business owner, Sarah, who has a contract to supply custom-made furniture to a client by a specific date. The contract includes a hefty penalty for late delivery. A week before the deadline, an unexpected and severe regional power outage, lasting several days, prevents Sarah's workshop from operating. She is unable to meet the deadline due to this unforeseen and uncontrollable event. While the contract's penalty clause is legally binding, a court might apply natural equity. It could decide to reduce or waive the penalty, acknowledging that it would be fundamentally unfair to penalize Sarah for circumstances entirely beyond her control, especially when she acted in good faith and the delay was not her fault.

• Suppose an elderly couple, the Millers, informally took in their orphaned grandchild, Leo, when he was a toddler. They raised him, paid for his education, and provided all his care for fifteen years, without ever formally adopting him or seeking a court-ordered guardianship. When Leo turns eighteen, his biological aunt, who had no involvement in his upbringing, suddenly appears and demands a share of a small inheritance left to Leo by a distant relative, claiming she is his closest legal next-of-kin. A court, while considering the strict legal definitions of kinship, might also look to natural equity. It would likely recognize the Millers' long-standing, parental role and the inherent fairness of their claim to be considered Leo's primary caregivers and guardians in all but name, ensuring that Leo's best interests and the Millers' dedication are acknowledged, rather than strictly adhering to a technical legal definition that would disregard years of care.