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

Contemporary Trust Law - Assignment ExampleIf in that location are no beneficiaries with honorable interests in the corporate self-reliance assets, there is in theory no one in whose favor the court can decree specific exertion Morice v Bishop of Durham (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 legitimate public object or useful social experiment which does not fall stringently within the definition of charity. A trust, for example, for the promotion of a particular sport (such as move 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 search into a proposed new alphabet also falls outside the 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 haulage out of mer e purposes where there are no beneficiaries vested with equitable ownership in the trust propertyThe law that a valid trust must be for the benefit of individuals (Bowman v Secular Society Ltd 1917 A.C. 406, 441, per Lord Parker) is not complete. A trust for charitable purposes is valid even with the absence of an equitable beneficial 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 large. Apart from this, there are several well-known inconsistent exceptions, classified by Lord 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 will not compel him to do so. These so-called trusts of imperfect obligation comprise (1) trusts for the creation of monuments and graves (2) trusts for the saying of good deal and (3) trusts for the maintenance of particular animal s. 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 reciprocally 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 residual estate upon a resulting trust as to both the legal and equitable championship. In reality, there is no trust here at all, rather a meagre power to apply for the stated purposes, with a contribution over or a resulting trust in evasion of exercise of the power.There are, of course, opposite cases where there may be a conviction despite the lack 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 adminis tration is completed. The personal representatives are simply the legal owners during the administration