Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
15 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
S.53(1)(c) Law of Property Act 1925: trust on land must be written and signed by donor. Oral declarations are unenforceable, not void. |
Expections: Hodgson v Mark's (1971): old lady remained as previously agreed. Section does not affect resulting, implied or constructive trusts. |
|
|
|
What is needed for a valid Express trust? 1. Intention 2. Subject Matter 3. Object (beneficiary)
To prevent fraud and ascertain validity, trusts are constituted by formalities.
|
Maxims/Rules in Milroy v Lord (1862): "Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift" and "Equity will not assist a volunteer".
Maxims/Rules in Jones v Lock (1865): Followed. Equity will "not treat failed gifts as trusts" and will "not assist volunteers".
|
Imperfect. Volunteer. Failed gifts. |
|
|
Incomplete constitutions: Milroy v Lord (1862) Re Fry (1946) |
Not fully constituted (testator died before transferring). Shares on resulting trust. Returned to the estate. Similar case, invalid as it was imperfect/incomplete (treasury consent needed). |
|
|
|
S.9 Wills Act 1837 - A valid will must:
|
Be written and signed by the testator. With 2 or more witnesses. Witnesses sign and attest the will. |
|
|
|
Transfer of land by deed - S.52 Law of Property Act 1925.
Signed registration of Land - S.29 and 30 Land Registration Act 2002.
Exceptions: short leases (less than 3 years at best price) - S.54 Law of Property Act 1925.
|
S.53 Law of Property Act 1925: Trust on land must be evidenced in writing and signed by donor. Disposition (to transfer beneficial interest to another) must be written and signed by the donor or his agent. Oral declarations are unenforceable, not void (copyrights, chattels, cheques and *some* shares may be orally transferred). Expections: Hodgson v Mark's (1971): old lady remained as agreed. Section does not affect resulting, implied or constructive trusts.
|
|
|
|
Chattels: constituted with intention to give and delivery or deed of gift (signed written evidence to confirm). Clear words of intentions needed to suffice.
|
Paul v Constance (1977) Rowe v Prance (1999) |
|
|
|
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 S.90 (3): not effective unless written and signed by or on behalf of the assignor.
Cheques: transferred though indorsement and delivery. |
Stock Transfer Act 1963 S.1 for shares: completed transfer form and registration at the company's share register (third party involvement). |
|
|
|
Failed Gifts:
Ross v Caunters (1980)
Carr-Glyn v Freersons (1997) |
Beneficiary signed the will as a witness. Gift is lost. Will still valid.
Gifts owned jointly. Surviourship passes. Gift is adeemed (previously sold). |
|
|
|
Failure to transfer trusts orally: Oral directions are void under S.53(1)(c). Grey v IRC (1960) - liable to stamp duty. Vandervell v ICR (1967) - shares still belonged to Vandervell, liable to surtax. |
Exceptions (valid oral contracts): Sale of land - Law of Property (Miscellaneous) Act 1989 Sale of shares in private companies- Nevile v Wilson (1997) |
|
|
|
Exceptions:
Re Rose (1952)
Mascall v Mascall (1984) (followed case) |
"Every best effect done" for transfer to occur. Applies when affected by acts of third parties. Yet, Lord Oakley argued that Re Rose was in conflict with Jones v Lock as it splits an absolute gift. |
|
|
|
Pennington v Waine (2002): unconscionable to recall gift.
Criticised by Lord Oakley and Professor Halliwell who argued it was uncertain and against Re Rose. |
Transfor form completed and left with auditor yet, testator died before registration. Held valid as the testator intended to make an immediate gift hence, unconscionable to recall gift. Third party actions not in their control. |
|
|
|
Exceptions: Zeital v Kaye (2011) (distinguished Waine). Merely signed a blank transfer form, hadn't done everything in his power.
|
Strong v Bird (1874): incomplete gift given to the executor who was the beneficiary. Intention continues and endures death.
Re Stewart (1908): extended to cover imperfect gifts.
Re Gonin (1979): mother's intention changed, cheque given instead.
|
|
|
|
Donatio Mortis Causa: Cain v Moon (1896): Conditional gift in contemplation (in reflection) of death.
Wilkes v Allington (1931): Sen v Headley (1991): |
Death doesn't need to be from the expected cause. But gift must be delivered to the beneficiary and is conditional on death. Subject matter must be capable of a valid gift. Land (keys) can be given. |
|
|
|
Proprietary Estoppel:
Taylor Fashions v Liverpool (1982)
Pascoe v Turner (1979)
Thorner v Major (2009)
|
Depends on the degree of detrimental reliance: - Representing 1 party, relied to the detriment of the other. Unconscionable. - Relied on promise, refurbished the house and received the property. - Reasonable reliance given to their detriment. Clear expectation of interest: Lord Walker.
|
|
|
|
SA v Pagarani (2001): Lord Browne Wilkinson: |
Orally declared gift to 1 trustee yet, if vested in 1 trustee, equity considers it vested in all the trustees.
"Equity won't strive to officiously defeat a gift".
|
|
