According to Maitland, equity is described as "the body of rules administered by our courts which, without the application of the Judicators Acts, would not be applied than by those courts which would be known as courts of equity.” At the time this would have been considered a poor definition, but today there is no better definition, because equity is essentially, as he puts it, "a set of appendices to the common law rather than an autonomous system. In its broad sense, equity is fairness as a legal system, it is a body of law that addresses concerns that fall outside the purview of common law. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayThe Earl of Oxford case paved the way for the development of the English legal system and it is said to be the cornerstone of fairness in the modern English legal system. This case concerned a plot of land in London that Henry VIII had given to Thomas Lord Audley as a reward for securing the trial and eventual execution of Anne Boleyn. In his will, Lord Audley left the land to Magdelene College, Cambridge. Who subsequently sold it and were indirectly acquired by the Earl of Oxford. Magdelene College subsequently challenged the Earl of Oxford's title to the property on the basis of a statue bar that, as part of the original sale, Magdelene College had made an immediate intention to bypass the statue. It was essential that equity did not seek to replace, much less overturn, the common law. An example of this maxim is the fair treatment of imperfect gifs, that is, free promises of transfer of property that are not fulfilled. Treating the gratuitous promise as enforceable, because it would be impermissible to allow the promisor to withdraw it, would have completely subverted the fundamental principle of the common law of contracts that consideration is essential in the case of every unsealed contract. Keep in mind: This is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. The range of equitable remedies themselves became limited to those that had been developed by the courts over centuries. The general idea was that fairness was dead. However, as the Supreme Court made clear in L v L, this does not authorize the courts to create new legal or equitable rights previously unknown to the law, unless it is "clearly and unambiguously guaranteed by the constitution, since this would amount to assuming the role of the legislator. Such a right, it was held, could only be conferred by the legislator.