Equity and Trusts Law - Coursework Example

Name Course Tutor Institution Introduction Equity is a form of natural justice which has moral basis. Equity can be implicit as a means which does not result in unfairness. These principles are established under the maxims of equity. The doctrine of equitable principle states that equity acts in personam on the sense of right and wrong of the defendant, which helps to consider as to whether or not a man has acted in good conscience. On the other hand, the law of trust was established out of the law of equity. Trust refers to those parts of the law of property that arises when one person ("settlor") gives assets (for instance some building) to another person ("trustee") in order to act steward on behalf of the beneficiary. It is enforced by the equity, therefore the beneficiary are said to have “equitable interest” in the trust property, while the trustee are treated by common law as holding the “legal title” enabling him/her to deal with the property in order to achieve the aim of the trust. It was developed under the jurisdiction of the King of England (Hudson Pp 70-96). Equity cannot just be used to take back a gain that was willingly but mistakenly agreed upon without prior consultation of the receiver. This maxim 'equity will not perfect an imperfect gift' or assist a volunteer aims at protecting the rule of choice. The maxim is viable in restitution. Restitution refers to the law which allow an individual to recover different benefits; centrally to this is the law of compensation, which is ultimately based on the loss-based recovery. Restitution has developed series of writ which were made available in different courts if not all, and were seen as an important tool used in recovering a gift. Restitution developed different means where individuals benefitted from the other. According to the law of contact, such agreements are considered unenforceable by the law. In Pennington v Waine, 'equity perfected an imperfect gift' thus aiding a volunteer. Pennington v Waine rule was concluded that it would be unconscionable for a settlor to have remembered what was intended to be a gift thus changes his course of mind. It is clearly evident that one cannot defeat a gift if the courts will assist a volunteer, even though this will mean that equity is not looking at form or substance. Common law regards any property as an indivisible entity, where it does not allow someone with legal title to get hold onto it. It is the duty of courts chancery to declare the real owner "in equity” as the other person. Equity acts on very many principles such as: equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy, equity follows the law etc. but my main focus will be on the principle that equity will not assist a volunteer. The doctrine of equity was developed in response to defects in English common law. It developed different remedies such as specific performance and the remedy for injunction, which are relatively unknown to the common law. In this sense, the doctrine of equity and trust law form part of law of contract as well as the law of property. Equity has developed the notion of trust, which allows for a separation of legal and equitable ownership of different properties (Hudson Pp 8-24). The following are ingredients that the courts must consider before making direction with regards to trust: that the settlor is willing to create a trust, the property that is to comprise the trust do exist and last but not least, it must identify the beneficiaries of the object with high level of certainty. I will explain the maxim that states that 'equity will not perfect an imperfect gift' and I will ultimately state situation where the maxim will not wholly apply. The rule that 'equity will not perfect an imperfect gift' is an application of the general principle which also states that equity will not assist a mere volunteer, this is clearly evident in Jones v Lock and Richards v Delbridge. A volunteer is not someone who acts with ill motives, but one who provides benefits without consideration for something of value. For instance, when a person mistakenly decides to make several improvements on a home (offeree), equity will not allow the improver at any moment to recover from the owner (offeror) of the house. This rule is only applicable to gifts. Since this is not just unequal bargain of goods, no equity or restitution will be able to enforce such gifts where there is change in the offeror heart, mind or is unable to transfer the property. Contract refers to an agreement between two or more people that is legally binding and is enforceable by the law. Therefore, an agreement to give someone a gift is not legally binding to both the offeror and the offeree since it is based on one side only. As a result, the offeree cannot call upon equity to grant the gift since the offeror is under no obligation to honour the promise. There are certain circumstances under which equity will recognize a gift; this is clearly evident under Pennington vs. Waine. This circumstance includes, where there is an outright transfer of gift which has legal title to the offeree, if it is for the benefit of the beneficiary and last but not least, if it is a self-declared trust. Donatio mortis is a situation where equity will surely assist a volunteer. This occurs where the offeror has established policies to transfer the gift in question, but was incapacitated by death, since he/she could not be able to complete the formalities necessary to effect the transfer. There are different death gifts, as clearly evident in Cain v Moon. Death gifts are gifts that are made in consideration of death. This occurs where the deceased offers gifts to the offeree with no consideration, the courts may be able to enforce such matter. Although some people may argue out that equity did assist the volunteer in any way, but the fact still remains that the legal title of such property has not been transferred in any way. In Re Rose, there is an exception in the maxim that equity will not perfect an impact gift. Here, it was held that where a settlor has done all that requires to be done in his/her power in order to transfer the property, but something else is still yet to be done by the third party, such transfer will be termed as valid in equity, and the offeror will hold the object of the transfer under trust. Re Rose raised some few questions which breached the principle in Milroy v Lord. This principle states that if the transfer was to be effectuated by either one of the 3 modes, the courts will not use a different mode to fulfill it thus enable the transfer. However, in Re Rose, this rule was breached, thereby paving ways for equity to perfect an imperfect gift. In addition to this exception is the rule in Strong v Bird, which states that if the offeree has manifested his/her intension to forgive a debt and swore to maintain this intent till his/her death, this will ultimately cancel the debt in law under trust. The implication of this rule (Strong v Bird) is that it was extended in different situations. In Re Stewart, the rule meant that an imperfect gift made to an offeror who become the donor may be perfected if the offeree manifested his/her intension to give gifts and this intension was to continue till the offeree death. It is clearly evident that in Re Stewart, the rule did not perfect an imperfect gift but assisted in the case of Strong v Bird; once again illustrating that equity is merely looking and concentrating at a substance but not a form, thus assisting a volunteer in one way or the other. Another exception is the proprietary estoppels, where the offeree acted to his disadvantage, through expenditure of money or anything else, as a result of relying to the offeror statement. In Willmott v. Barber the rule to proprietary estoppel on imperfect gifts were established. Under this rule the courts held that the offeree must have acted negligently or done a mistake on his entitlement and must have consequently acted in accordance with this mistakes which led to his/her detriment. In this case, the offeror must be full acquainted with relevant information and explanation on the mistaken belief on the part of the offeree, with this knowledge, the offeree must not do anything to bring out the whole truth to the offeror. In addition, equity shall intervene in order to complete the uncompleted transfer based on the offeror conduct, which allowed the offeree to continue operating under misapprehension is unconscionable. Another case illustrating the same notion is in Dillwyn v. Llewelyn, where a father (Dillwyn) offered to transfer part of his land to his son (Llewelyn) even though he was fully aware that this transfer was ineffective as it was not supported with a title deed, making it illegal and unenforceable by the courts. Llewelyn (son) believed to be the full owner of that part of the land thereby spending a total of $ 14,000 on terminating and abolishing a dwelling that stood the land with encouragement from his father. The requirement of equitable estoppel was satisfied by all means, thus the courts under equity intervened in order to complete the transfer of the land to the son. Here, the effect was actually to perfect an imperfect gift, since it was based on the unconscionable behavior of the offeror even though these exceptions clearly demonstrate that the rule or the maxim which states that equity will not perfect an imperfect gift is not complete, there are several exceptions based on fundamental equitable principles for instance the deterrence of unconscionable behavior and principles such as 'equity regards as done that which ought to be done' Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee, he who comes in equity must come with clean hand, etc.. Overall, equity arbitrates in order to achieve equitable results therefore divergence from a rule in the interests of justice is only to be anticipated. Works Cited Hudson, Alastair. Equity and Trusts. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2009. Hudson, Alastair .Understanding equity & trusts. New York: Routledge, 2004. Read More