[atticusfinch]

The terms 'equity' equitable' in equity' have been bandied about in another thread and show a basic misunderstandeing of what the term means in therules of golf, so I thought I would start anew thread. (The 'last page' of that thread has been going on for four pages.) I mean no offense to the position or argument taken by other posters.

The rules of golf were written by people from great britian and the usa for many years. The drafters were educated people experienced in british law and many were doubtless lawyers. They relied on their experience with the british common law, which is clearly the basis for the structure of the rules.

Today's rule 1-4 says situations not covered by the rules are to be decided "in equity."

This is not a casually chosen phrase. You will note that it does not say 'decided equitably' or that the decision will be 'equitable.' It says the decisions will be decided 'in equity.'

This is an echo of a time in the British common law that marked a departure in the manner that legal cases were decided. It was the intent of the drafters of the rules of golf to apply the same common law principles to the rules. What was that?

Initially to understand this issue, we must divest ourselves of the compulsion to define terms by their common meaning. Equity means fairness or equality to most people, and of course that was the guiding principle behind the evolution of equity courts (discussed below) but the terms "in equity" and "equity court" have their own unique meanings. So, in a court of equity or when discussing the rules of golf, the terms equitable or equity do not necessarily mean what we want it to.

It all began with King Henry II. If you saw the movie Becket, you have seen a dramatisation of the start. Henry II is called the father of the common law. Initially there was only one way an agrieved person could vindicate his rights, and that was by stating a case based on a rigid definition, and following rigid court rules, that if done properly would get the case before the king's court.

As society developed, it became apparent that disputes among citizens often would not fit the rigid rule of the king's court and he could not have his case heard. SO the king created the Chancery Court or Equity Court. This court had less rigid rules and a wider range of powers that would resolve disputes on an "equitable" basis rather than on the strict dictates of the king's law courts. These two systems came to be known as the "law" court and the "chancery" or "equity" court. (Today we often hear the term "heard in a court of law" and do not realize this is a vestige of the distinction between law and equity courts started 1000 years ago.

Many jurisdictions have "merged" law and equity so the same judge can hear both kinds of cases. Previously, a law judge could not hear an equity case and vise versa. But the conceptual distinction still exists. If you sue for damages for breach of contract, you are suing in law. If you sue to force specific performance of a contract, you are suing in equity. But in most jurisdictions, the same judge will hear both cases.

What does it mean that a case is decided "in equity?" It means basically this: if the case does not fit the restrictions of a law case, the chancery judge will make a decision based on the equities of the case. These are not simp.ly a license for the chancellor to decide a case on his whim, it means that the case will be decided on a set of principles, called equity maxims, that have been deveiloped over the years. But basically, IMHO, these maxims boil down to a simple equation: If the kings law court did provide a remedy for this situation, what would it be?

In otherwords, the chancellor must examine the common law and decide how his case would be decided if the common law provided a remedy. Not an easy job.

By analogy is the rules of golf are the common law of the king. They have a similar rigidity when subjected to interpretation. IN otherwords a rules official cannot impose his view about the fairness of a rule. He must enforce it to the letter. A ball that touches the boundary of a water hazard is in the hazard. There is nothing he can do about it. He is bound by the letter of the rule.

Rule 1-4 was created to help solve situations that could not be solved by reference to the rules alone. The choice of the term "in equity" makes this clear. The rule is not intended to give license to officials or players to decided if a rule is equitable or not, it was intendee to provide an official or commitee with a way to solve a problem within the rules that would fall short of saying..."well, the rules don't address it,, so you are out of luck." That's not fair. The player deserves a ruling. So one is devised that takes into account the same guidelines a court of equity follows: "If there were a law/rule that addressed this circumstance, what would it say?"

Clearly this question goes beyond the official's personal biased views, it requires him to objectivly evaluate the case and make a fair ruling "in equity."

This is probably more and less than I intended to write. But I tire.

Doubtless, some lawyers will disagree. I welcome their correction.