Contemporary Trust Law Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Contemporary Trust Law - Assignment display caseIf on that point are no beneficiaries with sincere interests in the perpetrate assets, there is in theory no one in whose favour the court can decree specific performance Morice v Bishop of shorthorn (1804) 9 Ves.399.The complexity, of course, with this approach is that it frustrates the requirements of a settler or testator, who may want to profit a legalize cosmos object or useful social experiment which does not fall stringently indoors the definition of charity. A trust, for example, for the promotion of a particular sport (such as angling or yacht racing) is not charitable unless linked to education Re Nottage 1895 2 Ch. 649 and Re Clifford 1912 1 Ch. 29. Similarly, a trust to be relevant income for the purposes of research into a proposed new alphabet also falls bring outside the verbal description of charity Re Shaw 1957 1 W.L.R. 729. To what extent, however, is it legitimate to use the mechanism of a trust for the haula ge out of mere purposes where there are no beneficiaries vested with equitable possessorship in the trust propertyThe justness that a valid trust must be for the benefit of individuals (Bowman v Secular Society Ltd 1917 A.C. 406, 441, per victor Parker) is not complete. A trust for charitable purposes is valid even with the absence of an equitable unspoiled owner to put into effect the trust. Here, of course, it is the Crown (acting through the Attorney-General or the Charity Commissioners) who takes on the role of parens patriae on behalf of the public at bear-sized. Apart from this, there are several well-known inconsistent exceptions, classified by shaper Evershed M.R. in Re Endacott 1960 Ch. 232, where the trustee may perform the terms of the trust if he so wishes, but the court go away not compel him to do so. These so-called trusts of imperfect obligation comprise (1) trusts for the origination of monuments and graves (2) trusts for the saying of masses and (3) trusts for the maintenance of particular animals. They will be valid (though unenforceable) provided they do not offend the rule against continuous trusts.Presumably, in the dearth of a beneficiary, the trustee is mutually the legal and beneficial owner of the trust property so that, if he fails or refuses to carry out the trust, the property will relapse back to the testators residuary estate upon a resulting trust as to both the legal and equitable title. In reality, there is no trust here at all, rather a meagre role to apply for the stated purposes, with a contribution over or a resulting trust in flight of exercise of the power.There are, of course, other cases where there may be a conviction despite the neediness of an equitable owner. The understandable example is that of a discretionary trust in favour of a large class which is too large to list but, nevertheless, theoretically certain in definition. In the same way, there is no equitable title to the estate of a deceased person until such time as the administration is completed. The personal representatives are simply the legal owners during the administration