Abstract
Achieving equity in litigation is "good." It is about ensuring consideration is adequate. Achieving finality in cases is better, although there is a cost to pay for peace of mind. Disposing of cases at minimal cost with "equity" is best. This article is about defining the meaning of doing "good," aspiring for "better," and achieving "best" under the circumstances at issue in a matter. This article defines "goodness" as "civic virtue," as "equity," and as "law," with the philosophy of law as enforcer of private, moral rights. Put another way, liberty or personal autonomy is the essence of private law transactions with all participants seeking predominance, but how can everyone win? The legal sub-system of society structures litigation to seek prompt closure of cases encouraging equitably assigning rights and duties to promote certainty and stability in social relations. Law functions effectively when government intervenes minimally and allows individuals to exercise freedom. Windfall profits and corresponding losses will occur, but justice demands the rule of law is consistent. Aristotle instructed we should accept law as a "valid and binding" device helping us achieve the "good life," which is a life "worth living" as it promotes meaningful fulfillment and denies blind pursuit of self-interest. For Aristotle, these lofty ends result from harmoniously balancing competing rights and duties, imposing exceptions where legal rules fail, and seeking to secure the "expectation of expectations," instead of defeating the "other," and in this way, law upholds its binding effect (von Leyden, 1967, pp. 2-3). Relying on Aristotle's insight, this article explores fundamental questions including whether "an agreement" is "fair," "lawful," and "good?" This article considers how courts view legal matters to "work out" the validity and "goodness" of promises.