Talk:Equitable remedy
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
NB. There are no articles on Wikipedia that cover off "tracing (law)" and "rectification (law)". It would be useful if those list items could be changed into links, if anyone is feeling strong enough. Legis 12:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Some very clever people have composed this article, clearly. But it is needlessly complicated, to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:84.65.188.96 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 8 January 2007
- Agreed that it probably could use a decent more introductory paragraph to make it more digestible to lay people. But to be fair, equitable remedies are a highly technical area of the law. --Legis (talk - contributions) 08:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is COMPLETELY INCOMPREHENSIBLE! 120.18.206.149 (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Terrible Article[edit]
Apart from a meaningless one-sentence introduction, the entire article consists of an "overview" section only. Both the introduction and the "overview" describe only tangential properties of the subject matter (references to old English courts etc), without even making an attempt to explain what an equitable remedy is. It is suggested that there is a contrast with legal remedies, but the distinction isn't explained. This article looks like someone just took random sentences from a textbook without any understanding of the topic. Someone who understands the topic and can write non-legalese, please junk this entire page and rewrite from scratch. 2602:306:CEAE:E60:606B:75D7:7864:A48C (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Since this has been standing unchanged for a long time, I will add an incomprehensible box due to the above-mentioned reasons. --Doubaer (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The present introduction, although longer and obviously better, gives some formal description but almost nothing about what an equitable remedy actually is. That is precisely what should be in the introduction. Zaslav (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
One other detail: the sentence 'Notably, the United States Constitution's Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial in civil cases over $20 to cases "at common law".' makes no sense. Also, what is the purpose of the sentence? Zaslav (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Mutual mistake 2605:8D80:525:D042:29BB:22CB:8C86:91AA (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)