Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Please help, this is my equity and trusts coursework question and i don't really know where to start


    Question: Gemma, who has become a wealthy business woman and co-owner of ‘extra-fast computing ltd (EF) with her best friend Nancy, made the following requests in her will dated 2017:
    1. £500,000 to my sister Louise in the hope and full confidence that she will look after the welfare and financial well being of our parents, Katy and Malcolm, for as long as they shall live.
    2. My 49% shareholding in extra-fast computing ltd to my executor, Dennis, to hold on trust for my brothers, Rupert and Stanley.
    3. To my former colleagues, Jackie and Gill, one of my collection of classic handbags to Jackie, the rest to Gill;
    4. £100,000 to my executor Dennis on trust to distribute it, in his absolute discretion, to such of the inhabitants of Aigburth, Allerton, Crosby and Formby as he shall think fit;
    5. £10,000 to Barry to divide up equally among those who regularly attend St Matthews Church, Allerton, but only if in the opinion of the parish priest, they are good Catholics;
    6. To my love Angelo, whichever of my 5 houses he desires to live in , with his children also allowed to choose a house each;
    7. The residue of my estate to my sister Louise.

    Advise Dennis as Executor as to the validity of these requests:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Start with revising the three certainties. It is quite a basic question which you should understand and you should be able to answer to a high-standard just by going off your lectures.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    Start with revising the three certainties. It is quite a basic question which you should understand and you should be able to answer to a high-standard just by going off your lectures.

    thankyou
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I have the same problem question I can't get my head around this at all
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Clause 1 the issue is obv certainty of intention there's precatory wording "in full confidence" precatory wording does not create a substantial trust - it could be argues that there's a moral obligation as seen in re Adams which meant there was no need to impose a trust as taking care of the children was just what he would have liked to have seen happen however it could then be argued that in comiskey v bowring due to there being clear direction then it is in fact a valid trust.

    Not sure if I'm correct but that's all I can think of
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawab2017)
    Clause 1 the issue is obv certainty of intention there's precatory wording "in full confidence" precatory wording does not create a substantial trust - it could be argues that there's a moral obligation as seen in re Adams which meant there was no need to impose a trust as taking care of the children was just what he would have liked to have seen happen however it could then be argued that in comiskey v bowring due to there being clear direction then it is in fact a valid trust.

    Not sure if I'm correct but that's all I can think of
    You don't have a clear direction here, so it is by no means arguable.

    Also the moral obligation point is completely separate to the ratio in Re Adams. You seem to be saying that the court did not deem it necessary to construe a trust because the mother would have given to her children anyway, which is obviously not true. I am sure you're aware of this, but you expressed it very poorly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    You don't have a clear direction here, so it is by no means arguable.

    Also the moral obligation point is completely separate to the ratio in Re Adams. You seem to be saying that the court did not deem it necessary to construe a trust because the mother would have given to her children anyway, which is obviously not true. I am sure you're aware of this, but you expressed it very poorly.
    No I don't understand what your saying I actually thought the re Adams case was a moral obligation? And I thought that question 1 of the problem question was also a moral obligation however I thought it showed clear direction like in the comiskey case?

    I am really struggling here if you could offer any help I would really appreciate it!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawab2017)
    No I don't understand what your saying I actually thought the re Adams case was a moral obligation? And I thought that question 1 of the problem question was also a moral obligation however I thought it showed clear direction like in the comiskey case?

    I am really struggling here if you could offer any help I would really appreciate it!
    Yes, there is a moral obligation in re Adams. The point I was making was that the moral obligation, i.e. the idea that the mother would most likely provide for the children, was not the reason the court in re Adams decided that there was not a trust in favour of the children. The only reason the court in re Adams decided that there was not a trust was because the words used by the testator were precatory and did not show intention to create a trust. I.e., the only reason was because the certainties had not been satisfied.

    Take the example of Jones v Lock (1865-66), the baby and the cheque case, Lord Cranworth LC was unable to hold that a father declared a trust for the benefit of his child owing to a lack of intention. He commented: "I extremely regret this result, because it is obvious that, by the act of God, this unfortunate child has been deprived of a provision which his father meant to make for him." The effects, such as the children being well looked after and cared for, are not things the court consider. Moral obligation, while being something to mention by the way, is not relevant to the law or your legal answer.

    Comiskey contained precatory words, but the will also said that if desired dispositions were not made, they would be made regardless. In the problem question here, there is nothing which says the dispositions would be made regardless. Comiskey should be mentioned and distinguished, as it does not apply.

    You and your pal are having difficulty with quite simple equity law. The first provision is the easiest, to be honest. You really need to get to grips with the material, read over everything again, because that is the only way you will improve.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you very much for your help! So are you saying that it would not be a valid trust?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hi. I have the same question for my coursework (assume we're on the same course) have you had any progress on answering this? I'm struggling
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You in ljmu? I'm not doing to well to be honest I just can't seem to get my head around it all there's just so much to take in!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah I am. I'm literally stressing out about this so much. I'm going through the lectures and there is too much to take in and too much to learn I just can't cope. I'm starting to draw together an idea but it's not up too much to be honest.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawab2017)
    You in ljmu? I'm not doing to well to be honest I just can't seem to get my head around it all there's just so much to take in!
    I told you all the answers in PM, for only a small small fee too. How are you still having trouble?
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.