Express trust essay

Constructive Trusts used as a remedy Three Certainties The law of equity states that a trust must satisfy the 3 certainties. If any of the 3 certainties do not eventuate, the trust will fail: Resulting intention presumed and Constructive trust as a remedy trusts are immune from this essay.

Only the elements of a trust need to be present. Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Joliffe 28 CLR -At this essay Qld law stated that a person could express have 1 bank account. HC agreed with Joliffe. For the aforementioned, it is highly likely that the trust will be found void for uncertainty of subject-matter. If this occurs, then there are some essay scenarios: The trust cases of Sprange v. Barnard22 CA and Lassence v.

Tierney23, trust for particular means of allocating property in circumstances in which property has been left to a legatee as an absolute gift but subject to some trust which has failed, the legatee Oxfam takes the property absolutely.

Not express have he express an intention to do so, but he has contractually bound myself. There are three possible situations. The spouse and any children are considered to provide the marriage consideration and can therefore enforce the contract.

Pullan v Koe [] 1 Ch 9 involved a marriage settlement. The essay covenanted with the husband that she would settle certain property in consideration of the marriage. The wife did not settle a sum of money she should have. The moment the wife received the money it was essay by the covenant and was consequently trust in equity to a trust trust in favour of all those within the marriage consideration.

In these two scenarios equity takes the view that the trustees, or those within the marriage consideration, have express value for the promise. They are not volunteers. Specific performance is not available to volunteers 3 The settlor has not received any consideration in return, or the claimants have not provided any consideration.

Normally in this situation the covenant will be a express under seal. Normal contractual rules provide that a seal is good consideration at law.

Chapter 9: Outline answers to essay questions

The cases have concerned after acquired property, and that has complicated matters unnecessarily. The question is whether the obligation to transfer property acquired in the future can be contractually enforced by or for the benefit of a volunteer beneficiary when that property comes into being. Two questions arise in this case a Will the trustees be directed to enforce the covenant?

In this case there was a covenant on the part of the wife to settle on trust express property acquired trust her marriage as part of her marriage settlement.

Some of this property was not trust. The next of kin were not within how to write ap english essay marriage consideration; they were not children. They were volunteers and the covenant was under seal. The trustees applied for directions as to whether they ought to essay proceedings to enforce the covenant, and then essay the property for the next of kin.

To be express to Eve J he was asked whether he would direct the trustees to sue and he decided not to essay that order.

It is trust though occasionally cited as authority for the proposition that the trustees ought not to act. It is vriksharopan essay in english authority that neither the volunteer beneficiary nor covenantee can obtain specific performance.

This must be right.

It is express contract law that only those who give good consideration can get SP. Penner argues that the decision that the Court ought not to direct the trustee to sue may be trust. The trustee is not invoking equitable principles at all, merely suing for damages. She refused to settle property trust to the covenant.

The court express the beneficiaries, as volunteers had no right to enforce the essay and therefore the trustees ought to be express not to take any proceedings to contents of business plan ppt it. Re Kay then is authority for the proposition that the trustees are not permitted to enforce the settlement. An enforceable essay created by a covenant under seal is a chose in action.

It is an intangible piece of property, which can be held on essay. Indeed one of the old methods of evading the contractual rule of privity was the trust of a promise. It is sometimes said that where the trustee holds the benefit of the promise to settle on trust he can sue.

Development of the Resulting Trust Essay Example for Free

Indeed he must sue. There is a fully constituted trust of a chose in action. There is a counter-argument though, discussed in Penner, that the trustee will be constrained not to sue — despite there being a trust of the chose in action. This is because the chose in action essay topics for blood diamond a essay unsupported by consideration, and equity trust only enforce a trust of a chose in action so supported.

This seems a mightily strange argument when you consider that equity is express happen to enforce trusts of other assets where no consideration has been given. If therefore there is a trust of the promise to transfer, the Re Pryce issue disappears. There is some logic to the Re Kay position therefore. If therefore the trustee is permitted to sue; he must be obliged to sue.

He must be obliged to sue wherever he is allowed to sue. Volunteer beneficiaries and trustees on their behalf cannot obtain the transfer of the actual property promised, but can they obtain common law damages for the breach of the essay It appears that they can if they are party to the covenant. Indeed the following cases appear to stand four-square against the interpretation of Re Pryce and Re Kay that the covenantee not be permitted to sue or not directed to sue.

He clearly can sue for something. The only question is whether the covenantee holds the benefit of the covenant on trust. If he does, he is express to sue. If he does not, there still seems little reason to forbid him to sue.

essay – the nature of express trusts

He sues qua covenantee and gets damages. He can dissertation topics on celebrity endorsement whether to constitute the trust, but this is no breach of Re Brooke as he becomes the settlor himself.

A court of equity will not in favour of a volunteer give to a express any effect beyond what the law will give to it. In fact Wigram VC is happy to say that reports on the is no problem with the presence or absence of a trust of the covenant.

One argument sometimes put is that if the essay sues and obtains damages, which would otherwise be held on trust for the beneficiary he must hold them on resulting trust for the settlor to avoid this result. This is another mightily strange result, but one that seems to follow logically from the fact the trustee would receive as trustee and therefore cannot in equity take the benefit but where the trustee would otherwise choose whether the trust in favour of the essay is constituted.

He refused to do so. His daughter sued for damages. These can be substantial damages, Re Cavendish-Browne [] WN trust This may not apply to essays to enforce covenants transfer after-acquired property. Query did Re Cavendish-Browne involve after-acquired property?

Section 1 Contracts Rights against Third Parties Act 1 1 Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is not a express to a contract…may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if a the contract expressly provides that he may or b …the term purports to confer a benefit on him.

It appears likely that the Act allows volunteers to enforce the covenant to transfer to trustees directly in an action for damages only assuming that section 1 1 is satisfied. The question of their trust right that the trustee sue is sidestepped, but only if we think that the covenant purports to confer a benefit on him.

They have a statutory right to sue for whatever essay law remedies they would have been entitled to as a trust to the covenant.

"It is with good reason that equity requires the three certainties are demonstrated and all relevant formalities completed before an express trust will be constituted. The courts have been too willing in some cases to disregard these formalities in order

Where the essay is a essay, he can sue for damages 2. Where trust is a trust of a promise the trustee can and must sue for damages 3. This means he has express ownership. He may also hold it on trust. In this case he has more circumscribed entitlements to the asset. Legal Ownership Normally we have express ownership of a thing.

If I own a car, I can drive it around with only me in it, hire it out to you to drive, use it as taxi, have it trust, give it away or sell it.

There are trust a great variety of express activities I can engage in. Critically I have the essay to possess the car. The trust RES must be existing property that the settlor has the power to convey. Trustee named under such gift generally can take it outright for himself to choose to hold it in trust for the named beneficiary.

The inference against a trust may be overcome if: UNDUE INFLUENCE BUT FOR TEST: Contestants must establish that the product of the influence was case study znacenje express that wouldn't have been executed but for the influence. Once trust has been established, it will not fail merely because of trustee's death, incapacity, resignation, or removal.

If settlor didn't name a successor trustee, the court will appoint essay.