If I were to "find words... symbols... that speak to heart and mind" I might change/remove the word "Law" from "Trust Law Oracle", since isn't a "Trust" more than law? What does it mean to give trust in the simplest definition? If we don't trust, have we given equity? Wouldn't the highest form of "law" be equity, i.e. that which fulfills the law?
MTKonig thats a great insight, thank you! perhaps "Trust & Equity Oracle" might be more accurate. The highest form of law is Equity in a Trust agreement. For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment, namely, "You must love your neighbor as yourself." from Galations 5:14 and Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Love, therefore, is the fulfillment of the law.from Roman 13:10. Love is the source of Equity and I feel that the name change you suggested is great and I wonder how indifferent or not that might be to the essential meaning of the oracle since equity supports law. This Maxim of Equity here states that basically equity supports the law and is not in contrary to which is very interesting to me. I think Equity/Love is the law and not all the imposed corporate regulations that are actually in violation of it.
Equity follows the law
Acquits sequitur legem
Equity will not allow a remedy that is contrary to law.
The court of Chancery never claimed to override the courts of common law. Story states "where a rule, either of the common or the statute law is direct, and governs the case with all its circumstances, or the particular point, a court of equity is as much bound by it as a court of law, and can as little justify a departure from it."[3] According to Edmund Henry Turner Snell, “It is only when there is some important circumstance disregarded by the common law rules that equity interferes.”[4]Cardozo wrote in his dissent in Graf v. Hope Building Corporation, 254 N.Y 1 at 9 (1930), "Equity works as a supplement for law and does not supersede the prevailing law."
Maitland says, “We ought not to think of common law and equity as of two rival systems."[5] "Equity had come not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. Every jot and every tittle of law was to be obeyed, but when all this had been done yet something might be needful, something that equity would require."[6] The goal of law and equity was the same but due to historical reason they chose a different path. Equity respected every word of law and every right at law but where the law was defective, in those cases, equity provides equitable right and remedies.
Replies
If I were to "find words... symbols... that speak to heart and mind" I might change/remove the word "Law" from "Trust Law Oracle", since isn't a "Trust" more than law? What does it mean to give trust in the simplest definition? If we don't trust, have we given equity? Wouldn't the highest form of "law" be equity, i.e. that which fulfills the law?
e.g. see the Eye of Equity as illustration:
Would the best way to build trust be upon the Maxims of Equity ?
Also recommend these (and other reading here):
MTKonig thats a great insight, thank you! perhaps "Trust & Equity Oracle" might be more accurate. The highest form of law is Equity in a Trust agreement. For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment, namely, "You must love your neighbor as yourself." from Galations 5:14 and Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Love, therefore, is the fulfillment of the law.from Roman 13:10. Love is the source of Equity and I feel that the name change you suggested is great and I wonder how indifferent or not that might be to the essential meaning of the oracle since equity supports law. This Maxim of Equity here states that basically equity supports the law and is not in contrary to which is very interesting to me. I think Equity/Love is the law and not all the imposed corporate regulations that are actually in violation of it.
Equity follows the law
Acquits sequitur legem
Equity will not allow a remedy that is contrary to law.
The court of Chancery never claimed to override the courts of common law. Story states "where a rule, either of the common or the statute law is direct, and governs the case with all its circumstances, or the particular point, a court of equity is as much bound by it as a court of law, and can as little justify a departure from it."[3] According to Edmund Henry Turner Snell, “It is only when there is some important circumstance disregarded by the common law rules that equity interferes.”[4] Cardozo wrote in his dissent in Graf v. Hope Building Corporation, 254 N.Y 1 at 9 (1930), "Equity works as a supplement for law and does not supersede the prevailing law."
Maitland says, “We ought not to think of common law and equity as of two rival systems."[5] "Equity had come not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. Every jot and every tittle of law was to be obeyed, but when all this had been done yet something might be needful, something that equity would require."[6] The goal of law and equity was the same but due to historical reason they chose a different path. Equity respected every word of law and every right at law but where the law was defective, in those cases, equity provides equitable right and remedies.