The General Rule on Constitution of Trusts

* This is a will contest case involving a codicil to the Last Will and Testament of Wheelock A. Bisson, M.D., deceased.

Mary McDonald, an 86-year-old woman, was frequently complaining about the high cost of maintenance of her house and high property taxes. She decided to cancel her fire insurance to reduce expenses. Mary’s daughter was aware of her mother’s concern about the property, and she took Mary to the lawyer’s office to sign some papers that would protect her mother. When Mary came to the lawyer’s office, she was advised that the paper she was going to sign was the deed to the property. Mary signed a document. Later on, when the municipal tax bill arrived, Mary McDonald was really surprised to see that the property was in her daughter’s name.

This function of the law, ensuring reasonable predictability in daily life, is challenged within this case. This is shown within the case, from the perspective of being the owners of

“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 colonial Dutch New Amsterdam law – before the English took control in 1664 and renamed it New York City – there was the perception of the reciprocal will, which was grounded on the understanding that husbands and wives were equal financial partners in a

[Analysis/Application] Like the cited cases above, our case of Vivian v. Bernie lacks mutuality of consideration. The reason being, Bernie never bound himself to the contract signed by both parties. When Bernie wrote “In the event that the seller breaches this agreement, the seller must refund the purchaser's deposit, but the parties shall be limited to this remedy and only this remedy” He freed himself of any duty of having to perform his part of the contract.

ANNECDOTE. The majority of the High Court in Clark v Marcourt, awarded damages of approximately A$1.2 million to the appellant, as the respondent was found guilty of breaching various warranties of the deed to purchase various property from a fertility centre, putting the appellant at a significantly better financial position than she would have been in had the breach not occurred. Prima facie, Clark seems to suggest undermining the compensatory principle in contract. ## This essay will analyse the decision in Clark through the doctrinal legal research method, using “normative” research. The aim of this research method is to answer the question of “what is the law” via logical reasoning and analysis of appropriate legal rules, and whether it applies to a particular factual situation.

The three significant flaws that I have been able to identify in the original Will include: no self-proving affidavit, failure to require that any GST tax payable on account of his death be paid as an expense of the estate, and ambiguity in the clause located at Article 1 section C. I will discuss each problem below and the proper action or changes that must be taken to remedy this flaw.

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

The New South Wales Court of Appeal permitted the organisation 's appeal and reasoned that the spouse had gone about as the wife 's operators in the property 's exchange. The Court in this way held that both the

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

Oliver J articulated the orthodox approach or rule in re London wine where property must be segregated form a lager mass of similar property for there to be a valid trust he said “To create a trust it must be possible to ascertain with certainty not only what the interest of the beneficiary is to be but to what property it is to attach.” “The ‘mere declaration that a given number of animals out of the flock would be held on trust would not create a trust’.

The law of contract in many legal systems requires that parties should act in good faith. English law refuses to impose such a general doctrine of good faith in the field of contract law. However, despite not recognizing the principle, English contract law is still influenced by notions of good faith. As Lord Bingham affirmed, the law has developed numerous piecemeal solutions in response to problems of unfairness. This essay will seek to examine the current and future state of good faith in English contract law.

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

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.