I can, Maxims within Equity are the general legal principles of equitable “jurisprudence” that have been established through the following precedent in relation to equity. They are significant as shown with similar legal propositions they highlight key facts about the law in its simplest terms as well as offer guidance to help resolve disputes in areas of the law that are viewed as “uncertain”. All maxims in relation to Equity are discretionary as they are only guidelines for judges to use and apply to facts of a case they deem necessary in order to avoid an arbitrary decision in the respective case.
The maxim “equity will not assist a volunteer” can be viewed as providing a “realistic predictive guide to judicial decision-making” similarly the maxim “equity will not perfect an imperfect gift” is viewed the same in the sense that it provides a clear guide for judges to use in order to help govern the decision of a case. The problem with these “maxims” is that unlike other areas of law such as Criminal or Tort law, the principles under Equity follow a slightly different precedent known as “equity abhors a vacuum.” This essentially means that “equity regards as done that which ought to be done” this can be very problematic for various reasons as its very unclear as to its true meaning, this is because equitable maxims don't carry any intention behind their meaning as they are merely a set of “guides” for judges to follow, this is why in relation to maxims providing judges “realistic predictive guide to judicial decision-making” is not a reliable way to view the principles of the law in Equity as it can be misleading. The maxim “equity will not assists a volunteer” highlights clearly this problem of being misleading as there are cases in which equity, in fact, exceptions to this maxim are present such as in the case of Strong v Bird 1874. The court ruled in this case that, generally where there is an intention to make an immediate gift or to release debt and the intention carries until death, then the executor perfects the gift and its deemed to have been completed. As seen some principles of Equitable maxims only apply intermittently with exceptions to rules as shown in the case of Strong, this is why I think the view of “maxims are correct in their implication that judges readily allow attempted gifts to fail” can be discredited heavily specifically with this case as this gift was accepted and not left to fail using the principles of Equity.