Equity and Imperfect Transfer

In 1993, Mr. Heggstad died without a trust. He had assets like his home that were intended to be in the trust, but were not included. He had essentially forgotten to sign and record the deed that transferred his home to the trust. In the case, the justice system found that having a schedule of assets attached to the trust was enough proof that the decedent wished for the assets to be placed in the trust.

A trust is often used by trusts that make grants or smaller service providing organisation of whom do not have a membership.

All employees analyze their environment and strive to be recognized and rewarded for their hard work and dedication they put into the company, in a word they are seeking justice. Justice can be defined as a person receiving what they feel they are entitled to and if they do not receive what they deserve the situation may board on injustice. Unfortunately in today’s society justice and appreciation are not given out to all those deserving (Pinder, 1998). A major problem to address is how to keep the motivation level high in a company when the employees do not feel appreciated.

When there is no records of any approval or refused of consent by a deceased patient (adult) in regards of donation (any parts of body or tissue) then nominated representative are appointed to make the decisions. The decision from the nominated representative cannot be overridden by other individuals including family members. However, in absence of nominated representative anyone who has ‘qualifying relationship’ such as partner, relative, siblings etc. are able to make decision on behalf of the deceased

“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

"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?

8. [LO 1] Can a partnership have unrealized receivables if it has no accounts receivable?

This paper examines the development and scope of accessory liability under the second limb of Barnes v Addy as it stands in both England and Australia. As to the law in England, the focus will be on the rearticulation of the principle of accessory liability under the second limb as stated in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan. In particular, it will consider the extent to which the decision has reconciled inconsistencies in earlier authority and remedied those issues propounded to be inherent in the traditional formulation of the principle. At this stage, this traditional principle remains good law in Australia. However, as suggested in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, there is potential for the

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

The contention arose with Hunter v Moss which did not follow the orthodox approach where Hunter was entitled 50 out of moss’s 1000 shares. Under the Goldcorp rule there would be no trust because the property was not separated however Dillon J said there was a valid trust. The rationale for this controversial decision was that it would have made no difference which 50 shares would have been given because they were all identical. So here there was no need to segregate the property if it was intangible.

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.

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.

It is to be noted that in Re Montagu the recipient was a volunteer , that is, who gave no consideration for the transfer of title so he could not count as equity’s darling. In Akindele by contrast the defendant had given consideration under a valid contract for the assets he received. Should it be ‘unconscionable’ for a volunteer to retain the benefit of his receipt being one who paid nothing for what he received in breach of trust where as under a valid contract a defence of bona fide purchaser will always apply to commercial dealings.