Certainty Essay

Philip J. Cooper v. Charles Austin 837 S. W. 2d 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992)

The difference between common intention constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel has been described as ‘illusory’ (Hayton). Do you agree with this statement? Consider how the case law has developed and give reasons for your answer.

Philosophy is defined by Webster as "Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline" or "Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods." This essay is a general look at those who pursued that intellectual means, those who investigated, even those who reasoned Reason. Because volumes could be written and this is a rather quick, unworthy paper: apologizes.

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

"As stated by Lord Evershed in Re Endacott, 'no principle perhaps has greater sanction or authority behind it than a general proposition that a trust by English law, not being a charitable trust, in order to be effective must have ascertained or ascertainable beneficiaries”. However, although the certainty of object is an important principle, it appears that the question in regards to the certainty of objects is one that asks whether there is a limit on the flexibility that exists in regards to discretionary trusts—which applies the ‘class test’ as opposed to the more definitive ‘list based test’ applied to fixed trusts—it may therefore be more appropriate to ask, what degree of uncertainty will be tolerated by the courts?

In the case of Gagnon v. Coombs, Joan Coombs did not have the right to convey the Shelburne farm to a trust that Joan herself established. Joan was the agent and Francis Gagnon was the principal in this case. At the time when Joan transferred the property to the trust she was no longer an agent but was unaware. Even though Joan thought she was still an agent she did go against the duties of an agent, thus not giving her the right to move the property to a trust.

“On application, the court may appoint the Public Trustee to act as a guardian for adults who are incapable of taking

A trust can only be enforceable if it is sufficiently certain. The three certainties of a trust must coincide for a trust to become valid. Absence of any of the uncertainties makes a trust invalid from the start. The three certainties are certainty of the subject matter, certainty of intention and certainty of the objects. All these certainties must be established to make a trust valid. The purpose of the certainty requirement of trusts is to ensure compliance with the intentions of the settlor. For a trust to be enforced, there must be an individual who can compel the trustee to enforce the trust. The trust should also be capable of being implemented for the benefit of a beneficiary. The certainty requirement ensures that a trust is capable of being implemented failure to which would render the concept of trusts pointless.

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 famous US decision of Riggs v Palmer serves to illustrate a considerable strength in Dworkin’s argument concerning rules and principles. The New York court had to decide a case to determine whether a grandson who poisoned his grandfather to obtain his inheritance was in fact able to collect such an inheritance. At the time, there existed no statute or law that invalidated his claim as a beneficiary due to his involvement in the murder. Furthermore, the applicable legal rule seemed to be that legacies contained in legally valid testamentary dispositions are to be guaranteed by law in accordance with the wishes of the testator. According to Hart, the court should, in this situation, be decided upon pre-existing law. Yet despite this, the court majority found that the grandson could not inherit, instead appealing to moral reasoning by citing the principle that no one should be able to profit from ones crimes. A similar decision based on principle was handed down 70 years later in the case of Henningsen v Bloomfield Motors Inc. As a result of these cases, Dworkin is able

The question of right and wrong has been battled over for centuries. Many conservatives still believe that truth is absolute, while others disagree, saying that truth is relative. I believe that truth is an individual’s perception of beliefs and decisions.

A harsh decision would been seen in the case of Re Fry (1946), as the donor in this case had completed necessary forms and returned them. He also applied for the necessary consent which required by the Defence Regulation (Amendments No.2) SI 1939/1620, but the consent was not given before his untimely demise. Romer J. did not upheld the trust because the donor has not done everything that is necessary for the transfer of the title. As Romer J. stated that if the donor had been asked for further details, he is not compelled to proceed with the transfer, he have the choice to refuse as he obtain more details about the transfer of share.The law had been very clear with regards to imperfect gifts or incompletely constituted trust, as some judges even decided harshly to comply with the maxim and general rule. However there are judges that came out with different rule to curb such harsh decision and strict principle, this is known as ‘the every effort rule’. The ‘every effort rule’ which was established in the case of Re Rose [1952] explained by Rimer L.J in Zeital v Kaye [2010] that “once a donor has done all in his own power to transfer the shares, he will be regarded as holding the legal title to them upon trust for the donee, who will thereupon become their beneficial owner”. This rule will not render the gift or trust failed

The general rule on constitution of trusts is ‘equity will not assist a volunteer to perfect an imperfect trust’. It is apparent that subsequent case law has sought to depart from such principle by introducing various exceptions which allow incomplete gifts to be perfected. Nevertheless, there has been many criticism and debate in regards to this area of the law since it is felt on the one hand, that the scope is for exceptions is being widened too far, whilst it is argued on the other that it will be unconscionable to the parties for the gift not to be perfected. Nonetheless, the exceptions is inevitable will continue to advance and thus create a topic for criticisms and debate.

In Re Montagu’s Settlement Trusts (1987) Megarry J held that in order to found a claim for knowing receipt, the defendant had to have actual knowledge that his receipt was in breach of trust or was ‘willfully blind’ shutting his eyes to the obvious; or willfully and