Equity: Trust Law

Agency law is a relationship between a principal and in agent in which the agent is legally authorized to act on the behalf of the principal.

2. When an agent acts in violation of his or her ethical or legal duty to the principal, should that action terminate the agent’s authority to act on behalf of the principal? Why or why not?

A writ of execution applies to a debtor’s nonexempt real or personal property wherever located.

Agent- A person who is employed to represent another while dealing with a third party.

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.

“…The parties [i.e. Fortia and Parkview] shall hold the retention, security or the proceeds of the security on trust…”.

This decision can be clearly identified within Ansbacher Trustees Ltd, where it was stated that it would “be a highly unsatisfactory situation if such beneficiaries were held not to have standing to sue the trustees for breach of trust”. These powers are of obvious importance to objects, who may need to draw upon these remedies, in instances where settlements have been created, for example, to avoid tax, such as what can be seen in the Vandervell case, or in The Exeter Settlement where it was mentioned “the power to add and delete beneficiaries from the class of potential objects of a discretionary trust originated from the need to obtain “maximum flexibility” in, for example tax planning strategies”. These types of trusts are thus set up to provide more secrecy for the settlor; however they are vulnerable to being

3. A principle of rectification of injustice - how to deal with holdings that are unjustly acquired or transferred, whether and how much victims can be compensated, how to deal with long past transgressions or injustices done by a government, and so on.

When you co-sign the bail bond, you're providing physical property like a home or a car as collateral, or you're providing cash to ensure the person's release. With these tangible items, the bail bondsman will have a guarantee that they'll be able to recover the money provided to the court. If the person who was arrested doesn't appear in court, the co-signer is responsible to pay the entire

This trust was an alternative form for a monopoly, and other companies began to use this “trust” form of business in order to create giant monopolies in their independent markets.

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

When creating an express trust knight and knight articulated that there must be certainty of subject matter, certainty of intention and certainty of objects.

On the contrary, in Bruton court’s understanding of “exclusive possession” was a relative concept. Exclusive possession granted to Mr. Bruton was found based on the fact that he was not required to “share possession with the trust, the Council or anyone else”[13] and “the trust did not retain such control”[14]. Whether the grantor possesses title or not was held to be irrelevant. Nevertheless, since LQHT in fact could not exclude the true owner (i.e. the Council) from taking possession, the exclusive possession enjoyed by the “tenant” would be “only as against the grantor and not the rest of the world”[15] and practically dependent on the contractual relationship. This has received support from later cases applying Bruton. In Islington LBC v Green[16]with similar facts to Bruton, the tenant raised an argument that the

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.

Agency issues arise when one party (principal) gives another party (agent) an authority to act on his behalf. In this context, the principal is the investor while the professional hedge fund