Hunter V Moss Criticisms Essay

What is trust? The dictionary meaning of trust is a firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something. The second meaning is, confidence placed in a person by making that person the nominal owner of property to be held or used for the benefit of one or more others. But what can we really define as trust? In this paper, I will discuss how trust is used every day in different situations, how we deal with trust in various relationships, and how we as individuals practice trust within ourselves.

| 21 |LO 4 |Basis for inherited property: community property vs common law | |Unchanged | 21 |

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.

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

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.

Starting with the background knowledge and miscellaneous information that gives us a better understanding of what goes on in scientific research, Barry gives us a comparison between certainty and uncertainty. Describing certainty, the author uses words with good connotation, “Certainty creates strength. Certainty gives one something upon which to lean.” The words to be looking at here are strength and an action that can be done with certainty that feels supportive. When describing uncertainty the author uses words with a bad connotation, sort of making connotation seem the better option, “Uncertainty creates weakness. Uncertainty makes on tentative if not fearful, and tentative steps, even when in the right direction, may not overcome significant obstacles.” The word

A case to support my argument was Marion J. Dombkowski v. Edgar R, Ferland. “Ferland claims title to his property by virtue of a deed from the Estate of Doris Rood in 2001. In 1994, Dombkowski acquired his property from his brother Anthony. The Roods lived next door when Anthony purchased the property in 1964. The court declared Dombkowski the owner of the property and enjoined Ferland from procession of the property

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

It is often conceptualized that property is the rights of 'ownership'. In common law property is divided

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

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

To fully understand the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Ltd [1989] on the doctrine of consideration, its is important to examine the doctrine more closely. Traditionally, modern English law has largely abandoned the benefit/detriment analysis and prefers the definition provided by Sir Federick Pollock that “consideration may be defined as an act of forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, being the price for which the promise of the others is

23). Essentially, a subjective approach would create uncertainty. It would not be safe to rely on a promise if the promisor was able to later deny that they ever intended to make such a promise. ‘Security of transactions is an essential characteristic of contract law.’ (Poole, 2006, p. 34). Arguably, the subjective approach is impractical. Parties may later express whatever suits their purpose at that time. In the words of Adams and Brownsword: ‘To found contract on a subjective approach, therefore, would impede commerce, invite fraud, and unfairly defeat good faith reliance on the natural meaning of a promise.’ (Adams and Brownsword, 2007, p. 48). As stated by Steyn LJ in the case of G Percy Trentham Ltd-v-Archital Luxfer (1993), ‘the governing criterion is the reasonable expectations of honest men, or what a reasonable man has been led to believe the position to be.’ (Poole, 2006, p. 35). Taking this into consideration, it would appear more practical to adopt an object approach and judge the parties on what they said and did at the time of agreement. Therefore, the objective stance does not necessarily empower the courts to impose their views on contracts. It does however, provide a more reasonable and pragmatic response to adjudicating disputes. This is mainly due to the fact that the parties are unable to state whatever suits their purpose at that time.

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

However, it is false to state that is solely thus equitable principle that enables the enforcement of secret trusts. An alternative theory is that they arise, dehors, or, outside of the will. It was stated by Danckwerts J in Re Young, in holding a secret trust valid, that in fact ‘the whole theory of the formation of a secret trust is that the Wills Act has nothing to do with the matter.’