How did Aristotle's idea of equity help judges deal with cases not anticipated by lawmakers?

In the context of the philosophy of law, Aristotle recognized that laws are inherently universal in form, meaning they establish standards of conduct that apply generally to classes of persons and types of actions. Because of this universal nature, a law may occasionally fail to apply—or apply only indeterminately—to a novel case that the original lawmaker did not foresee.1

Aristotle argued that this limitation does not stem from a flaw in the law itself or a lack of foresight by the legislator, but rather from the inherent nature of the case. To address these situations, he proposed a corrective exercise known as "equity". Equity allows a judge to speculate on how the law would have been applied had the lawmaker been aware of the specific, novel circumstances, and then to apply the law accordingly. This process ensures that justice is served even when the strict, universal application of a statute would be inadequate or unintended.1