Property Law Asessment - Essay Example

Private express trust which is governed by the precedent set by the case of Knight vs Knight of 1830. It sets out three certainties which need to be met in order for a trust to be met. These are certainty of matter, object and word. The followings are legal advise that Leo needs to know concerning the clauses in his draft will. 1. Under the law of trusts, for a disposition to be valid, three certainties must be met. Certaintyof matter, objects and words. Certainty of matter is Leos building shares, of intention is when he says that income from his building shares to go to Ben as long as he lives and of object is Ben himself2.

This disposition is a fixed trust. In the case of Re Endacott 1959, a fixed trust is identified as the ability to identify the lists of beneficiaries. Here, Ben is a beneficiary therefore this trust is valid. 2. This disposition is a private express trust. In the case involving Knight vs. Knight3, three certainties must be present for a valid trust and Kassim being the only beneficiary, this trust is therefore a bare trust. The subject matter and intention of the testator is not clear in this situation since the word reasonable is vague.

Leo has not given a precise value of what Kassim needs to earn from his blue chip companies.In the 1965 case of Golays Trust4, the word reasonable was extensively analyzed and it was allowed to stand in the legal principles of defining certainty of subject matter. The intention of Leo under this dispension is unclear and the case of Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry of 18845 analyzes if this disposition is valid. The case used the words in full confidence, and it failed because the words were not sufficientto create a trust.

Another case, of Musoori Bank ltd andRaynor of 18826 used the words,In full confidence and the court ruled that words such as that cannot create a valid trust.Under the case Palmer vs. Simmonds 1854, the word bulk was used and it was considered insufficient in writing a will, since the word itself is vague. Under similar circumstances, the word reasonable is vague and it requires more clarity from Leo. Therefore this trust is void. 3. Ben and Toby are the only beneficiaries of this disposition making this a fixed trust under the certainty of object law.

However there is a possibility of Ben dying before making a choice and therefore this disposition is invalid under the principles set out in the Boyce and Boyce 1849 case. Where the testator gave one of his daughter, Maria a choice of taking one of his houses before his other daughter Charlotte. Maria died before choosing any house making the will void. Using this principles of this case, the trust will be void. 4. This is an example of a public express trust. Under the case of Knight vs. Knight, 1830, for a public express trust to be valid, there must be three certainties.

Certainty of words, subject matter and objects. Under this case, there is certainty of subjects that are Sonya and Adaeze and certainty of objects that is the residuary estate. However, the word bulk is not certain. Under the case Palmer vs Simmonds 18547, the word bulk was found to be vague therefore using the same principles of Palmer and Simmonds, this trust is void. 5. This disposition is a purpose trust and under the law, it will not hold. The 1876 case of Musset vs Bingle 8prevented the erection of monuments for an individual and under the draft will; there are no beneficiaries for the monument.

The case Morice vs. Bishop of