IndexIntroductionDevelopment of the concept of fairnessDevelopment of modern fairnessFlexibility in fairness theoryFeminism in fairnessDevelopment-relevant casesConclusionIntroduction In fairness in the English common law system it is the principle that regulates the legal system. Fairness in general is nothing but a fundamental set of rules or legal principles and maxims that possess the power and legitimacy to prevail over the law in question. This is the system that gave the civil system all its members and extensions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The civil law legal system is fundamentally derived from fairness. It is rather said to be believed and proven beyond dispute that the principle of equity as a whole alleviates the severity existing in the common law system and overshadows it. It allows courts to apply their prudence and relate equity in unity with the natural law system. In reality, contemporary fairness is limited by the procedural and substantive system. English legal criticism tends to identify the technological aspects of equity. In the case of historical criticism, critics claim that fairness was missing in the initial stage of the suggested rule. The Lord Chancellor rarely arbitrated on the main features of fairness according to his principles. Various critics state that equity capital must be flexible in nature. This article attempts to explore the theory of flexibility in the fairness principle. Along with that, this article attempts to explore the effect of growth and development in the principle of equity in the modern aspect. Development of the concept of equityThe court order granted him in writing the privilege of readmission into his territory and recognized this privilege in the defense of the violation of his right of ownership over his land. In 1253, to prevent judges from discovering new deeds, the legislature established that the authority to look at deeds would subsequently be transferred to judges only one deed at a time, in a deed of privilege recognized as a scheme of deed. Due to the lack of a legal solution, the only alternative for the plaintiff could be to turn to the King. Then, as a result, the population began to ask the King for a suspension of unjust judicial decisions, and as the community of plaintiffs rapidly developed, so the King entrusted the task of trying such appeals to the Lord Chancellor. Because in the early stage the Chancellors were short of official legal guidance and produced little compliance with precedent, their conclusions again and again varied widely. Around the year 1529, a lawyer called Sir Thomas More, was selected into the position of Chancellor marking the beginning of an innovative era. The question asked was first and foremost about its value and the certainty it possessed. While on the one hand one chancellor might have a long foot and the other a short one, on the other the third might have another yet different size. The problem would be that any of this would qualify to be such a thing in the conscience of a chancellor. As the law of equity developed, there was increasing conflict and rivalry with the principles of common law. Disputing parties might indulge in “litigation shopping” and then seek an equitable restraint imposing a bar on the enforcement of common law orders. The punishment that was imposed for failing to obey the fair "common injunction" and enforcement options provided by the common law courts' ruling amounted to imprisonment. Sir Edward Coke, who was the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, initiatedthe system in which the writ of habeas corpus began to be issued requiring that criminals who were imprisoned for violating the orders of the chancery would be released. This ongoing difficulty reached its highest threshold in the case of the Earl of Oxford (1615) where the decision handed down by Chief Justice Coke was wrongly obtained for committing fraud. Lord Ellesmere, who was the Lord Chancellor, passed a related injunction of the Court of Chancery expressly imposing a ban on the enforcement of the common law order. The two conflicting courts were deadlocked and the matter was subsequently referred to Sir Francis Bacon, who was the Attorney General. Sir Francis Bacon referred to asking the authority of King James I and under that authority, argued that common injunction can be granted and also concluded that, in case there should be a conflict between common law and equity, what would remain in Existence is fairness. The Development of Modern Equity After 1473, the legal system witnessed the development of the Chancery system in which the rights of the parties were determined by the courts based on their issued decrees and actions. Gradually, problems began to arise related to the different way the chancery system operated and based on situations in which decisions directly conflicted with the prevailing common law system. The proceedings before the Court were not related to the issue of writs per se but were concerned with presenting an application which required that attention be paid to the complaint or summons but, at the same time, that there was ample room for prevention to be provided to prevent any action under common law and, at the same time, prevent the issuance of any kind of injunction. Thomas Moore supported the proposition that injunctions or any kind of restraint should not be issued if judges occupying seats in common law courts deal with the harsh realities of the system but, at the same time, if they fail to to agree and decide jointly on a single issue in a situation where existing systems were subject to the fate of fate to clash and agree. In the year 1617, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench was Sir Edward Coke. The Chief Justice presented a complaint to the then King James I who confirmed the rights of the chancellor which ultimately gave development to the jurisdiction of equity. The established principles were subsequently developed by successive Chancellors. The most important figures in this development were Lord Nottingham, popularly called the father, Lord Hardwicke who was the developer of the principles that were established and Lord Eldon who is known as the consolidator. There was enormous dissatisfaction caused in the Chancellery. The cause most attributable to this discontent in the Chancellery was the increased workload and the extreme inefficiency of the administration. This ineffectiveness was associated with the pricing structure. The entire list of exhaustive causes caused dissatisfaction in the Chancellery. To resolve this controversy, a greater number of appointments were made regarding judges and the aim was to achieve a harmonious situation. The remedies assimilated with the harmonious construction between the provisions of common law and equity have facilitated this regard. The resulting laws in this regard were the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854 and the Chancery Law Amendment Act of 1858. Ultimately it was felt that that time had come which immediately required further reform. Flexibility in the theory of equity It is generally assumed that the principle of equity is an opposite legal system orsometimes complementary to common law. Whenever the law is strict, the share provision remains flexible on that particular issue. This principle supports the discretion of the court of judges rather than depending only on rules and law. This principle provides for justice rather than simply establishing rights of the parties. In feminist jurisprudence, the most profound holds that the law of equity defends justice for women by applying the rule of flexibility. However, many people argue that fair flexibility in terms of fairness is an imaginary thing. Lord Denning argues for a new fairness. It states that the existing law can be changed for obvious and valid reasons and for the needs of society. After 50 years of this approach, many changes have been made based on the needs of society. Lord Denning's statement is considered one of the most modern approaches to the concept of fairness. Equity Feminism Equity feminism and gender feminism are the two classifications of feminism whose definition was first put forward by the eminent scholar Christina Hoff Sommers is the author of the book “Who Stole Feminism?” She went on to describe equity feminism as having the ideological goal of ascertaining equal and legitimate rights conferred by law on both men and women. She went on to define gender feminism as having the intention of combating the challenges posed under sexism and the social structures of patriarchy that are faced in everyday practice associated with society and cultural diversity. Sommers herself strongly supports her vision which she prefers to call equity feminism and, at the same time, continues to constantly criticize her concept of what continues to be gender feminism. Sommers provides a description of equity feminism as an ideology that has its roots deeply rooted in the essence of the classical aspects of liberalism and that has the specific aim of achieving full equality regarding the civil and equal rights of women . Experimental psychologist Steven Pinker provides a thorough extension of Sommers's point. continues to say that equity feminism is nothing more than a simple moral doctrine that has its fundamental impulse in treating men and women equally. it makes absolutely no commitment that requires and takes into account bruising and open-ended questions of an empirical nature that exist in both psychology and biology. In the researcher's opinion, after analyzing all aspects of the current legislation, and the different perspectives of equity, it can be said that to implement an adequate reform in the field of feminism, equity can be totally argued in favor. Regarding the different dimensions of feminism, various researchers testify to a significant restructuring linked to the construction and deconstruction of law. Of course, there are some exceptions to this feasible option as considered in the titles of Wong's essay “Property Rights for Home Sharers: Fairness under a Legislative Framework.” Other scholarly work highlighting the underlying exceptions is provided in Fehlberg's study on sexually transmitted debts. Developmentally relevant cases Williams and Glyn's Bank v. Boland is an important case in this discussion. This is an important aspect in changing the mortgage industry. In this case for the first time the financiers would have taken into consideration a woman at home. But the appeal court extended the protection afforded to Ms Boland. In the second part of the 20th century the position of equity has increased and supports the situation of flexibility and adoptability rather than mere technique and rigidity. The Chamber of”.