annie_t (asker) Feb 17, 2011:

thanks:) Thanks a bunch for your help, Rafael. It's much clearer to me now.

Fr-EnD Feb 16, 2011:

Concepts based solely on Anglo-US law Many centuries ago, English jurisprudence was based on 2 systems: the common law and Equity. The CL was a very strict: if you didn't cross your T's and dot your I's before a CL law court, such as the Court of King's Bench, you were out of luck. But a parallel system called Equity developed, and if you chose to seek relief before courts of Equity, you would have more rights safeguarded there. One of the most important developments out of courts of Equity was the trust: one person holding ppty for the benefit of another. Just because you held the property didn't mean you owned it outright, and could do whatever you wanted with it. Courts of Equity recognized trusts, but courts of law did not. The two kinds of cts merged centuries ago, but the distinction between law and equity still exists, in theory, in Anglo-American law. There are still certain defences - i.e. legal doctrines that prevent you from having to pay money you don't want to pay, or do things you don't want to do - that are based on things that the old courts of Equity would do. The most common such defences are estoppel, unconscionability and laches. You'll probably have to use quotes in the xlation.