what is the difference between equity and commonlaw?

Answer 1

Until the beginning of the 20th century, most common law jurisdictions had two parallel court systems, courts of "law" that could only award money damages and recognised only the legal owner of property, and courts of "equity" that recognised trusts of property and could issue injunctions, orders to do or stop doing something. Although the separate courts were merged long ago in most jurisdictions, or at least all courts were permitted to apply both law and equity, the distinction between law and equity remains important in categorising and prioritising rights to property, and in the principles that apply to the grant of equitable remedies by the courts. In the United States, the distinction can determine whether the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial applies (a determination of a fact necessary to resolution of a "law" claim) or whether the issue can only be decided by a judge (issues of equity).

Answer 2

In medieval times, there were two court systems.

Courts of law granted primarily monetary damages. Courts of equity granted primarily injunctions (orders to do or not do something).

This distinction has pretty much been eliminated in the US, where most courts can now grant relief at law or in equity, as appropriate to the claim.

The phrase "common law" generally refers to the decisions handed down by the courts, starting with the Old English common law, and more recently referring generally just to legal precedent derived from past cases. Common law decisions in the US govern interpretations of the law, as well as issues related to remedies at law (damages) and in equity. So, again, the distinction in the US has largely been eliminated.

Answer 3

Equity- Judges decide cases based, not on law so much as what is "right"
Common law- Judge-make laws so not statutes or federal laws
The difference?- Common law has more precedential value and is more likely to be followed in subsequent cases than equity decisions because so discretionary.