UK Law / Equity and Trusts / Problem Question Free Essay Example, 3000 words

As stated in Sections 182 and 183 of the Companies Act 1985 â€Å"a share transfer form must be executed and delivered with the share certificates followed by entry of the name of the new owner in the company books. † Failure to comply with these formal requirements, the intention of Donna to create a trust in favor of Abigail for the benefit of Sam and Mandy, created no legal effect. Besides, Donna’s will (presumed to be validly executed), remains standing up to the time of her death. If she really intended to transfer the shares to Abigail, she could have amended the same or executed a new one. In addition, Section 53 (1) © of Law of Property Act of 1925 states that, â€Å"Dispositions of equitable interests are void unless they are in writing, signed by the person disposing of the interests or by an agent authorized by that person. † B. 100,000 The money should revert back to Donna’s estate. The delivery of the cash to Toby together with the written instructions as to how to handle the money as well as its proceeds constitute implied trust in favor of Toby, and donation in favor of Essex-based actors who may need monetary assistance. We will write a custom essay sample on UK Law / Equity and Trusts / Problem Question or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now As a general rule, an equity must demonstrate the existence of three (3) certainties namely, certainty of intention, certainty of subject matter, and certainty of object. In addition, the required formalities must be complied with. In certainty of intention, the intent to create a trust must be clearly manifested. In the case at bar, this has been complied with since Toby is already constituted an agent of Donna, together with the written instructions accompanying the money sent through the motorcycle courier. In certainty of subject matter, the property subject of the trust must be clearly identified. Here, the trust property was clearly mentioned, to wit, the income from the 100,000 to be invested. The certainty of objects on the other hand refers to the ascertainability of the intended beneficiaries. In this case, the beneficiaries are not clearly identifiable at the outset but remains to be identified, based on the exercise of discretion by the agent Toby. Thus, who should be given monetary assistance from the proceeds of the income generated from the investment of the 100,000 given by Donna to Toby is not even known to the trustor Donna. The exercise of discretion lies with the trustee Toby. As discussed in the similar case of McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424, â€Å"where discretionary trusts are concerned, the test for certainty is whether it can be said with certainty if any given individual is or is not a member of the class and the trust does not fall simply because it is not possible to ascertain every member of a class. † In this case, Lord Wilberforce re-stated the new test of certainty of beneficiaries thus, can it be said with certainty that any given individ ual is or is not a member of the class.