Irit Samet’s Equity develops a novel and philosophically rich interpretation of the body of law originating in the English Court of Chancery, the body of law known as ‘Equity.’ Equity began as a response to particular cases where the rigid procedures of the common law led to substantive injustice. In such cases, the Court of Chancery could intervene to force individuals to act according to the dictates of ‘conscience.’ As Lord Ellesmere LC wrote, ‘when a Judgment is obtained by Oppression, Wrong and a hard Conscience, the Chancellor will frustrate and set it aside, not for any error or Defect in the Judgment, but for the hard Conscience of the Party.’ Over time, Equity was itself systematized, and in the 1870s the separate courts responsible for Equity and common law were fused: from then on, one court could apply both bodies of law. But many Equitable doctrines retained the marks of their origin: broad principles, stated in morally freighted language (‘conscience,’ ‘clean hands,’ ‘loyalty,’ and so on) and applied in a backwards-looking and fact-sensitive way (xv). The fusion of Equitable and common law courts raised the question whether the substantive bodies of law developed by these courts ought to be fused as well. Samet’s aim, in this constructive and tightly argued book, is to defend Equity against the fusionists. We can reconstruct her argumentative strategy in two steps, which rebut different strands of the fusionist project (120). Some fusionists maintain that the separation of Equity from common law is a historical accident, so that little of substance would be lost by formalizing its rules in the style of property and contract. Others grant that Equity pursues a distinctive normative ideal but suggest that this ideal is unjustifiable in a modern legal order. Samet argues, first, that Equity is not just a grab bag of doctrines that happen to share an origin; rather, it is unified around a distinctive normative ideal. This ideal would be undermined in a fused legal system, because it requires the flexible and particularistic approach that is typical of Equity as opposed to common law (2). Second, Samet argues that the normative ideal served by Equity is still worth BOOK REVIEW

中文翻译：

---

Irit Samet，股票：良心走向市场

Irit Samet 的 Equity 对源自英国衡平法院的法律体系进行了新颖且富有哲理的解释，该法律体系被称为“公平”。衡平法最初是为了应对普通法的严格程序导致实质性不公正的特殊情况。在这种情况下，衡平法院可以进行干预，迫使个人按照“良心”的指示行事。正如 Ellesmere LC 勋爵所写的那样，“当通过压迫、错误和良心获得判决时，总理将挫败并将其搁置一旁，不是因为判决中的任何错误或缺陷，而是因为党的良心。” 随着时间的推移，衡平法本身被系统化，在 1870 年代，负责衡平法和普通法的独立法院融合在一起：从那时起，一个法院可以同时适用两种法律体系。但是，许多公平原则保留了其起源的标志：广泛的原则，以充满道德的语言（“良心”、“干净的手”、“忠诚”等）表述，并以向后看和对事实敏感的方式应用（十五）。衡平法法院和普通法法院的融合提出了这些法院制定的实体法实体是否也应该融合的问题。在这本富有建设性且争论不休的书中，Samet 的目标是捍卫 Equity 反对融合论者。我们可以分两步重建她的论证策略，这反驳了融合主义项目的不同方面（120）。一些融合主义者坚持认为，衡平法与普通法的分离是一个历史性的意外，因此以财产和合同的形式将其规则正式化不会失去任何实质内容。其他人承认公平追求独特的规范理想，但认为这种理想在现代法律秩序中是不合理的。Samet 认为，首先，Equity 不只是一堆碰巧有相同起源的学说；相反，它围绕一个独特的规范理想统一起来。这种理想在融合的法律体系中会受到破坏，因为它需要灵活和特殊的方法，这是公平而非普通法的典型方法 (2)。其次，Samet 认为 Equity 所服务的规范理想仍然值得书评 这种理想在融合的法律体系中会受到破坏，因为它需要灵活和特殊的方法，这是衡平法的典型特征，而不是普通法 (2)。其次，Samet 认为 Equity 所服务的规范理想仍然值得书评 这种理想在融合的法律体系中会受到破坏，因为它需要灵活和特殊的方法，这是公平而非普通法的典型方法 (2)。其次，Samet 认为 Equity 所服务的规范理想仍然值得书评