The Three Certainties Handout Topic 2 The Three Certainties 1

the Three Certainties Handout Topic 2 The Three Certainties 1
the Three Certainties Handout Topic 2 The Three Certainties 1

The Three Certainties Handout Topic 2 The Three Certainties 1 Perhaps th e most important reason f or compliance with the three certainties lies in the fact that it allows a trust to be distinguished fr om powers of appointment. powers of appointment and trust s have similar features, however, they are. Topic 2: the three certainties introduction an express trust can arise in one of two ways. firstly, it can arise when a person, called a settlor, transfers property to trustees to hold for the benefit of a beneficiary. 明示信托 产生于财产转移 where the person transferring the property to trustees does so in a will, he is referred to.

Seminar 2 Classifcation And the Three certainties Seminar 2
Seminar 2 Classifcation And the Three certainties Seminar 2

Seminar 2 Classifcation And The Three Certainties Seminar 2 Trust must be sufficiently certain to be valid and enforceable. 3 certainties: 1. words or intention (to create a trust); 2. subject matter (the property subject to the trust); 3. objects (beneficiaries) failure to comply with the certainty requirements can render the disposition void. Accordingly, the law has developed a test known as the “three certainties” that encompasses certainty of intention, certainty of subject matter and certainty of objects beneficiaries (lord langdale mr in knight v knight (1840)). the bottom line is that the three certainties need to be present so that a trust can be workable and capable of. 1. so that the trustees know what their obligations are under the trust. 2. so that, if necessary, the court itself will be able to administer the trust. explain the certainty of intention. the certainty of intention is to determine whether the words used by the settlor testator reveal a clear intention to create a trust. 1. certainty of intention (words or conduct) 2. certainty of subject matter 3. certainty of objects (beneficiary) > knight v. knight (1840).

Comments are closed.