SHORT steps in a sequence of cases over just forty years have changed the dominant English understanding of equitable relief from forfeiture almost entirely. Each step has been volitional, yet taken without the judges evidently intending such large change or considering whether stare decisis permits it. That this has befallen a body of law that acquired its modern form 350 years ago is worrying. Relief against forfeiture is routinely granted in relation to leases and mortgages. But relief in relation to licences and contractual rights has become controversial through the erroneous belief that equitable relief from forfeiture would disrupt such ordinary – and commercially-important – contracts. Vauxhall Motors Ltd v Manchester Ship Canal Co. Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1100; [2019] 2 W.L.R. 330 makes clear the issues involved and the legal cul-de-sac to which this misunderstanding leads.

中文翻译：

---

剥夺平等权利的条件是什么？

在短短四十年的时间里，一系列案件中的简短步骤几乎完全改变了英国人对没收公平救济的主流理解。每一步都是自愿的，但法官显然没有打算进行如此大的改变，也没有考虑凝视决策是否允许这样做。令人垂涎的是，这已成为350年前获得其现代形式的法律体系。通常会就租赁和抵押提供救济。但是，由于错误地认为，从没收中获得公平的救济会破坏这种普通的和商业上重要的合同，因此与许可和合同权利有关的救济已引起争议。Vauxhall Motors Ltd诉Manchester Ship Canal Co. Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1100；[2019] 2 WLR