|
|
|
| Authored by: IANALitj on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 11:08 PM EDT |
The "common law" system in England started several hundred years
before the parallel legal system known as "equity." Equity was
intended at first to be a flexible system to ameliorate some of the rough edges
of the common law, but it soon developed into a system with its own complex
rules. It is customary when distinguishing the two systems to refer to them as
"law" and "equity." The corresponding adjectives are
"legal" and "equitable."
As equity developed in England, and originally in the United States, there were
separate courts for law and equity. In the United States federal courts, there
was a merger in 1938. Some states merged earlier, some have not yet merged
their courts of law and equity.
There are differences in many details. A major one is remedies. In general,
law gives money damages. In contrast, injunctive relief is an equitable remedy.
(One of the factors that can give rise to injunctive relief is that "there
is no adequate remedy at law.")
Estoppel is an equitable doctrine, not a legal one.
Another difference is that jury trials are the norm at common law, while trials
in equity are to a judge alone. (As usual, there are exceptions. A judge
trying an equitable matter may empanel an advisory jury. If, as here, both
legal and equitable matters are being decided, the same jurors as are deciding
the legal questions of fact can also serve as the advisory jury to answer the
judge's questions that relate to equitable matters.) The right to trial by jury
is enshrined in the Seventh Amendment, which provides "In Suits at common
law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved." Notice the first clause. Trial by jury
is only preserved for legal matters.
Thus, despite the fact that for almost 75 years the federal courts have been
courts of both law and equity, the old distinctions continue to be of
considerable technical importance.
In this case we have a thorough mixture of law and equity. There are jury
demands, and also demands for purely equitable injunctive relief. The judge has
to juggle the various requirements, deciding some matters himself and leaving
others strictly to the jury. He is also permitted to ask the jury to give him
their advice on some matters in an advisory capacity, although he retains the
entire responsibility for deciding those matters.
Since the estoppel question is an equitable one, it is for the judge to decide,
not the jury. Even if the jury determines some facts that are relevant, that
cannot deprive Google of its right to have the judge rule on its claim that the
acts of Oracle (and its predecessor Sun) give rise to an estoppel. That will be
a decision for the judge to make, according to the doctrines of equity. He did
not give the estoppel issue to the jury, because it is not theirs to answer.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
