An Explanation Of A Case On The Law Of The Existence Of An Agreement Between The Testator And The

How to become a good justice, especially a Supreme Court Justice, whose decision can hugely affect the interpretation of constitution in the subsequent cases around the country. In Tinker v. Des Moines, justice Fortas provided a great example of how to become a good justice. The majority opinion in Tinker v. Des Moines makes a reasonable, coherent and solid argument, which is stronger than the dissent in the decision.

“Whenever a devise, conveyance, assignment, or other transfer of property, including a beneficial interest in a land trust, maintained or intended for maintenance as a homestead by both husband and wife together during coverture shall be made and the instrument of devise, conveyance, assignment, or transfer expressly declares that the devise or conveyance is made to tenants by the entirety, or if the beneficial interest in a land trust is to be held as tenants by

In his article ‘Equitable Rights of Cohabitees’ Hayton suggested that the distinction between common intention constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel has, over time, come to be but illusory and goes on further to propose that since the general direction of the development of the law has been to embrace the principle of preventing and remedying unconscionable conduct regardless of whether the claim brought before them was originally brought under the concept of a constructive trust or proprietary

A forum applies its own choice of law approach. So here North Montana will apply the Second Restatement of Conflicts of Laws as the state follows that approach. Under the Second Restatement, three main steps need to be considered: 1) whether the conflict is procedural or substantive, 2) whether a choice of law provision in a contract should be applied, and 3) the application of a choice of law rule. Here, it appears that the choice of law provision selecting Old York should be applied because none of the exceptions to the general rule apply.

In todays world an Ethical Will seems almost foreign to many people. A monetary or property Will is a type of Will that people are most familiar with. This deals with ones property being distributed to a younger generation upon or near death.2 The encyclopedia Judaica defines a Will as a, “person’s disposition of his property in favor of another in such manner that the testator retains the property or his rights to it until his death.”5(page65) Some may be unaware that there are different types of monetary Wills. The first is called a Mattenat Bari, which means, “gift by a healthy person.”5 (page 65) The second type is called a Mattenat Shekhiv, “a gift by a person critically ill.” 5 (pg65) The last type is called an Mezavveh

56. The doctrine that applies when one person confers a benefit on another who retains the

It is argued, that the imposition of this rigid structure would only undermine the settlor’s wishes and result in the courts finding the trust to be administratively unworkable. It has been stated in Re Manisty’s Settlement “that a power cannot be uncertain merely because it is wide in

In the case of Salman vs. United States, Masher Kara was an investment banker in Citigroup’s healthcare investment group and he had access to highly confidential information about Citigroup’s clients. He shared those information with his older brother Michael, who later shared the information with other people, included Salman. They gained the benefits by shared the inside information. However, it is not unfair and illegal. Judge Alito’s delivery of the opinion of the court reflects of Aristotle’s virtue ethics model because it shows that Maher and Salman did not possess the quality of morality.

He pointed out that a trust should not be dependent on this distinction and that a trustee should look for beneficiaries in order to fulfill their fiduciary duty under the trust. In his opinion, Lord Wilberforce, noted that a discretionary trust is a trust and the trustee must identify beneficiaries. He continued that where a trust was made for the benefit of a group, the complete list test will not be appropriate in establishing certainty of objects. The list of beneficiaries in a discretionary trust cannot be completed and the trustee is, therefore, not required to provide equal benefits for all beneficiaries. In his view, the most appropriate test would be to inquire whether an individual is or is not a member of a beneficial

This essay will discuss the Supreme Court decision in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar) . The issue in this case was whether a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on constructive trust for his principal. This topic is a “relentless and seemingly endless debate” , as Sir Terence Etherton described, and that the “remedy awarded has vacillated for the last 200-odd years” . The major reason for the debate is because the principal will have propriety claim as opposed to a mere equitable compensation, if the bribe or commission is held on a constructive trust . The principal will be in a much more advantageous position if he was held to have propriety

Certainty of subject matter is where there must be an identification of the trust property and certainty as to whom is which part of the trust property to be held. In relation to uncertainty of beneficial interests, the trust will fail where the method of distribution is stipulated by the sethlow but cannot take effect (Boyce v Boyce). However the trust will not fail where the method of distribution is not stipulated by the sethlow leaving the court to intervene (re napton). If there is an effect of lack of certainty in

The following is a case study of Blackwell v Blackwell, that is connected to the principle of Secret Trusts and particularly Half Secret Trusts. In order for the principle to be understood, it is significant to expatiate on what secret trusts are and the several laws revolving around them. In general terms, a secret trust arises where a testator, A, tells B that he is leaving property to B on his death, and that he wishes B to hold it on trust for C, even though no trust for C has been set out in any formal will executed by A. If B agrees, when the property passes to B on A's death, the court will enforce the secret trust despite its informality and require B to hold the property for C. In secret trusts, two different types are recognised by the courts, one where the trustee and the terms of the trust are not mentioned in the will, this is a fully secret trust while a half secret trust is subject to a trust obligation which is apparent on the face of the Will, but the terms of the trust and the identity of the beneficiary are not disclosed. The trustee is not in position to deny the trust and can not fraudulently take the property because he is a trustee for someone. Equity will not allow him take the property beneficially. The major difference between both is the extent in which disclosure is made as to the recipient of the gift intends to take the property as a trustee rather than for himself. Secret Trusts can also arise where there is no will, it may be in a case of

With a good faith requirement, it could be argued that a culture of trust and cooperation would emerge which would compel a duty of disclosure.

The advance directive, or living will, is one way of circumventing the ethical dilemma of Quinlan, as it is essentially a set of choices by the competent patient if faced with different hypothetical circumstances. Patients can thus feel comfortable knowing that their competent wishes have been documented and can be easily interpreted in case of catastrophe. However, the authority of advance directives is a topic hotly debated amongst medical ethicists (see Advance Directive Authority). Arguments against directives state that not all factors are considered by the person creating the advance order. Also, in some cases of severe dementia, it is argued that the personal identity of the author is no longer intact and therefore has no authority over the treatment of the “new” person. The debate on this topic is extremely complex, but many of today’s cases are decided on an individual basis, with the directive often being upheld.

Wolfgang Keller is a 34 year old graduate of the Harvard Business School. After a fast moving career building a reputation for turning around failing businesses, Wolfgang Keller once again found himself facing the challenge of turning around a losing business. This time it was as managing director of the Ukrainian subsidy of the Konigsbrau Brewery. The company was experiencing €2.9 million per year with annual sales of €116 million, (Gabarro, 2008). Even though this was a bigger company that he was used to dealing with, he seemed to be well on his way to success after just three years. Sales had increased to €145 million and the company was finally turning a €7 million