Another way to come up with ex ante arguments is to imagine how a legislature would think about the problem facing the court. Legislatures make general rules for the future; they don’t resolve individual disputes that have already occurred. So if a legislative committee or a government agency were considering a rule about how banks should handle hostage takers, it less likely would be distracted by the equities of any one case. Its role would be to make decisions that have consequences ex ante—going forward.

Source: p 6, The Legal Analyst, Ward Farnsworth

The plural definition here is 2.1, but which doesn't make sense in this context. Since that (independent) clause is discussing "any one case", shouldn't it use the singular of Definition 1 (= The quality of being fair and impartial) ? One case can't be equitable in different ways, then it's not equity?

  • 2
    Even though a particular case is singular, it may have multiple conditions that must each be evaluated for fairness or impartiality. – GalacticCowboy Aug 5 '14 at 15:56

If you're referring to the abstract, general meaning of equity as a virtue, etc. you are correct. However I believe this is a legal term that can be pluralized: an equitable right or claim:

See definition here

|improve this answer|||||

I did find a definition of "equities" that would be plural in context (there might be several claims or overlapping rights):


4. law: an equitable right or claim: equity of redemption

It seems to me that the word "facts" would be better in context (or maybe "particulars"), and either would be plural. I think you have found an example of a poor word selection.

|improve this answer|||||

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.