Equity & Trust-three certainties (urgent pls help!!) Watch

gooseli
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
hi all, i am dealing with a question in relation to the concept of three certainties as shown below:

The following provisions are contained in the will of the late X, who died recently in an accident:

(a) $500,000 to my brother Jovy and, at his death, the remaining part of what is left, that he does not want himself, to be divided between his children.

(b) $10,000 to my neighbours, Kenny & Kelvin to distribute amongst such of the inhabitants of London as they shall, in their absolute discretion, think fit;

(c) most of shares in my company, Fast Ltd, to my daughter Betty, but requiring her to hold a reasonable proportion of the annual income therefrom for the benefit of my son, John

Actually i am confused with the concept of certainty of intention, i try to answer as follows:-

for disposition (a), i am of the view that there is sufficient intention as there appears a gift to Jovy and with trust in favour of the children after his death and he has no right to enjoy the property absolutely, the words "and, at his death..to be divided between his son" seem to use absolutely, Comiskey v Bowring refers.

for disposition (b), it appears that no imperative obligation and only moral obligation is imposed, Re Adams and Kensington and Lambe v Eames refer

for disposition (c), i am of the view that the words "requiring him to hold..for benefit of my son John" create sufficient intention, Wright v Atkyns

Please comment and correct me if wrong. Many thanks!!!!!
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
I would have thought that there was sufficient intention in (b). A moral obligation would be something like "In the hope that they will use this money to benefit... etc". But here it reads to me as though they have to distribute the $10,000 to 'such inhabitants'.
0
reply
gooseli
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by Forum User)
I would have thought that there was sufficient intention in (b). A moral obligation would be something like "In the hope that they will use this money to benefit... etc". But here it reads to me as though they have to distribute the $10,000 to 'such inhabitants'.
thanks for your reply. Is that mean if there is an "act', i.e. to distribute/hold, intention will be probably constituted?
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by gooseli)
thanks for your reply. Is that mean if there is an "act', i.e. to distribute/hold, intention will be probably constituted?
I'm not sure that is the best way of explaining the distinction. "$10,000 to A to do whatever they like with it", would involve an "act" in the sense that I understand you meaning, but that must obviously be a gift.

The distinction ought to be between situations where the person receiving the property can do whatever they like with it, and situations where they cannot. In (b) it seems that they have to distribute the funds to inhabitants of London.

On the other side of the line would fall ""$10,000 to A to do whatever they like with it but I really hope they distribute it to inhabitants of London", or "... in the hope they will remember my love for the inhabitants of London", or even "... and may they be cursed by a plague of locusts if they decide to keep it instead of distributing to inhabitants of London". In all of those examples, the recipient can do whatever they like with the property.
0
reply
gooseli
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#5
very detailed explanation! thank you so much=)!!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • SOAS University of London
    Postgraduate Open Day Postgraduate
    Wed, 29 May '19
  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Day - Penryn Campus Undergraduate
    Thu, 30 May '19
  • Cranfield University
    Cranfield Forensic MSc Programme Open Day Postgraduate
    Fri, 31 May '19

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (199)
22.49%
The paper was reasonable (402)
45.42%
Not feeling great about that exam... (165)
18.64%
It was TERRIBLE (119)
13.45%

Watched Threads

View All