100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Equity and Trusts Problem Question - Constitution of Trust £4.99   Add to cart

Exam (elaborations)

Equity and Trusts Problem Question - Constitution of Trust

 888 views  4 purchases

Equity and Trusts Problem Question - Constitution of Trust

Preview 2 out of 6  pages

  • August 2, 2021
  • 6
  • 2021/2022
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers
All documents for this subject (5)
avatar-seller
macchai99
Equity and Trusts Problem Question: Constitution of Trust


Question:


Sheridan owned 50 shares in Chadwick Ltd, a registered company. Prior to his unexpected
recent death, he had wanted to transfer the Chadwick Ltd shares to Delaney. In front of
witnesses, Sheridan signed the necessary share transfer form and sent it to the company
secretary at Chadwick Ltd. Unfortunately, the secretary took no further action.


Aware that he was getting old, Sheridan had recently met with his friend Lauriche and gave
her the keys to a safe containing deeds to his house, 21 Legatt Street. Sheridan told Lauriche
that 21 Legatt Street would soon be hers. Sheridan did not pass over door keys to 21 Legatt
Street to Lauriche. At their meeting, Sheridan also gave Lauriche a cheque for £25,000 by
way of a gift.


Following his death, it transpired that Sheridan had written a valid will. In the will, he left
Mara, who is the executor of the will, a collection of valuable manuscripts. At the time of
Sheridan’s death, the manuscripts were locked in a safe owned by Edwina. Before the date
of the will, Sheridan had orally told Edwina: “these manuscripts are yours, although I shall
be their trustee.” On his death, Sheridan also owed Mara £30,000.


Advise Delaney, Lauriche and Mara.

, Answer:


The issues faced by Delaney, Lauriche and Mara concerned with constitution of a
trust. They wish to construct a valid trust or gift so that they are entitled to Sheridan’s
shares and properties respectively.


Delaney


In order to advise Delaney, it must first be determined the intention of Sheridan,
whether the 50 shares in Chadwick Ltd (CL) was transferred as a gift or a trust. As the
question did not mention that he expressly declared himself as a trustee or saying that
shares to be held by Delaney on the benefit of someone, the shares is said a gift [Jones v
Lock]. Next, as in Milroy v Lord, to construct a valid share transfer using correct formalities,
the share transfer form must be filled and registered by the company, but the latter had not
been observed in Delaney’s case since the secretary takes no further action after receiving
the share transfer form, hence the transfer is incomplete. Generally, no equity shall perfect
an imperfect gift, as Milroy went further to state that a gift that fails cannot be rescued by
interpreting the owners intention to be one to create a trust, as a trust render a division on
title, whereas a completed gift render an absolute ownership possessed by donee.


One of the exceptions was laid down in Re Rose, as the court held that as long as the
settlor had completed all he can do to transfer the title, and the defective transfer was due
to third party’s fault, he will make himself the trustee and the trust was constituted . Paul
Todd (1998) opined that there is no evidence at all to show his intention to create a trust,
and it is unreasonable to impose on his conscience, but the adoption of the rule continues.
In practice, Delaney’s case is expected to rule in the same way as above, as Sheridan had
signed the necessary share transfer form and delivered it to secretary of CL. However, the
question is silence on the existence of share certificate, as in Zeital v Kaye, the absence of
handing over the share certificate to donee will render the exception in Re Rose
inapplicable, as the settlor had not done what is necessary. Thus, if the share certificate was
passed to Delaney, transfer will be valid at the moment Sheridan fulfilled his parts [Marcall v
Mascall], but in fact it did not happen. The concept of unconscionability in Pennington v

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller macchai99. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £4.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

84866 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now

Start selling
£4.99  4x  sold
  • (0)
  Add to cart