# on 03-Aug-2016 (Wed)

#### Flashcard 1377932021004

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
As you can see, the requirement that there must be an understanding that payment would be made may be implied. This is more likely in a commercial context. This principle was acknowledged in [...].
Re Casey's Patents [1892] 1 Ch 104

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
As you can see, the requirement that there must be an understanding that payment would be made may be implied. This is more likely in a commercial context. This principle was acknowledged in Re Casey's Patents [1892] 1 Ch 104.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377933069580

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
The rule in Williams v Roffey only applies to promises to pay more.
Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 474

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### pdf

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377935953164

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Merely carrying out a public duty imposed by the law will not amount to sufficiency of consideration.
Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B & Ad 950

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The principle in these circumstances is that merely carrying out a public duty imposed by the law will not amount to sufficiency of consideration. Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B & Ad 950

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377939623180

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
FACTS: Collins was subpoenaed by Godefroy to attend as a witness in an action. Collins subsequently brought an action against Godefroy, claiming a guinea a day as his fee for attendance. Assuming that Godefroy had expressly promised to pay the sum claimed as compensation for loss of time, was there any consideration for the promise? HELD: There was no consideration for the promise. The duty to attend was a duty imposed by law.
Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B & Ad 950

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B & Ad 950 FACTS: Collins was subpoenaed by Godefroy to attend as a witness in an action. Collins subsequently brought an action against Godefroy, claiming a guinea a day as his fee for attendance.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377941458188

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
The duty of a police officer is the prevention of crime and he is not under a duty to provide information to a private individual. In doing so he went beyond his public duty and thus provided consideration for the offer of reward.
England v Davidson (1840) 11 A & E 856

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### pdf

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377945128204

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
FACTS: To maintain law and order, a substantial police presence was required inside the defendant's football ground and this involved a significant amount of police overtime. According to the police, their attendance at the request of the club amounted to 'special police services' for which, by statute, the defendants were obliged to pay. The club refused to pay for these services claiming that the police were merely carrying out their normal public duty in ensuring the maintenance of law and order and, therefore, they had provided no consideration for the promise of the defendants to pay for those services. HELD: The responsibility of the club was to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the game took place in conditions that did not occasion danger to any person or property. The attendance of the police was necessary to assist the club in the fulfilment of this duty, which went beyond the maintenance of law and order, and for which the club should pay.
Harris v Sheffield United FC [1988] QB 77

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Harris v Sheffield United FC [1988] QB 77 FACTS: To maintain law and order, a substantial police presence was required inside the defendant's football ground and this involved a significant amount of police overtime. According t

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377946963212

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Harris v Sheffield United FC [1988] QB 77
FACTS: To maintain law and order, a substantial police presence was required inside the defendant's football ground and this involved a significant amount of police overtime. According to the police, their attendance at the request of the club amounted to 'special police services' for which, by statute, the defendants were obliged to pay. The club refused to pay for these services claiming that the police were merely carrying out their normal public duty in ensuring the maintenance of law and order and, therefore, they had provided no consideration for the promise of the defendants to pay for those services. HELD: The responsibility of the club was [...]. The attendance of the police was necessary to assist the club in the fulfilment of this duty, which went beyond the maintenance of law and order, and for which the club should pay.
to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the game took place in conditions that did not occasion danger to any person or property

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
merely carrying out their normal public duty in ensuring the maintenance of law and order and, therefore, they had provided no consideration for the promise of the defendants to pay for those services. HELD: The responsibility of the club was <span>to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the game took place in conditions that did not occasion danger to any person or property. The attendance of the police was necessary to assist the club in the fulfilment of this duty, which went beyond the maintenance of law and order, and for which the club should pay.</sp

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377949846796

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
FACTS: The parents of an illegitimate child separated and the father paid a neighbour £1 per week to look after the child. Subsequently, the mother wrote to the father to ask him to let her have the child and the £1 per week. The father agreed if: (a) the mother could prove that the child would be well and happy; and (b) that the child was allowed to decide for herself whether or not she wished to live with her mother. The child did wish to live with the mother and the father paid the £1 per week for seven months. At that point the mother married and the father refused to make any further payments. The mother sued for breach of contract and the father pleaded want of consideration. He maintained that the National Assistance Act 1974 s 42 imposed a duty on the mother of an illegitimate child to care for her child. Consequently, the father alleged that the mother was doing no more than she was required by the public duty imposed upon her by law. HELD by the Court of Appeal: the majority of the court, while acknowledging that the mother did owe an existing duty, found 'ample consideration' for the promise in the mother's undertaking to keep the child happy and to allow her to choose where she wished to live. This was over and above her public duty to maintain the child.
Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496 FACTS: The parents of an illegitimate child separated and the father paid a neighbour £1 per week to look after the child. Subsequently, the mother wrote to the father to ask him to let

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377953516812

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
A promise by A to perform a pre-existing contractual duty owed to B (as opposed to the actual performance of that duty) as valid consideration for a promise made by C.
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A promise by A to perform a pre-existing contractual duty owed to B (as opposed to the actual performance of that duty) as valid consideration for a promise made by C.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377955351820

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
An agreement to do an act which the promisor is under an existing obligation to a third party to do, may quite well amount to valid consideration and does so in the present case: the promisee obtains the benefit of a direct obligation which he can enforce.
New Zealand Shipping Co v AM Satterthwaite & Co (The Eurymedon) [1975] AC 154

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### pdf

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377957186828

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
It is also clear from the case itself that the tender of a different chattel at the request of the creditor could amount to fresh consideration. The chattel may totally replace the money owing or may be tendered along with a partial payment.
Sibree v Tripp (1846) 15 M & W 23

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### pdf

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377961118988

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In a subsequent case, [ case ], the Court of Appeal considered the application of promissory estoppel in the context of part payment of a debt. The interesting point about this case is the approach taken by Arden LJ, one of the judges who heard the appeal. Her Ladyship seems to suggest that as long as the creditor agrees to accept part payment and the debtor makes the agreed part payment, then there will be sufficient reliance to invoke promissory estoppel.
Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1329

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In a subsequent case, Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1329, the Court of Appeal considered the application of promissory estoppel in the context of part payment of a debt. The interesting point about this case is the approach taken by Arden L

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377964002572

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
The issue of protest in particular, as outlined above by Kerr J in [ case ], proved critical in the case of North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd and Another (The Atlantic Baron) [1979] QB 705. In this case, shipbuilders agreed to build a tanker for the shipping company for $30,950,000, payable in five instalments. The contract required the builders to open a reverse letter of credit for the repayment of instalments in the event of their default. After the first instalment had been paid, the dollar was devalued and the builders threatened not to deliver unless the remaining instalments were increased by 10 per cent. The owners were advised that there was no legal basis for the claim, but were anxious that they might lose a favourable charter with Shell if the ship were not finished on time, and in a telex dated 28 June 1973, they agreed to the increased payments 'to maintain an amicable relationship and without prejudice to our rights'. The builders did this and delivered the tanker; the owners took delivery without protest. Some eight months later, the owners claimed the return of the extra 10 per cent. It was suggested that they did not seek the return of the money sooner because they were concerned about the delivery of a sister ship (The Atlantic Baroness) also being built for them. However, the arbitrators found that this fear was groundless. It was held that, although the agreement to pay the extra money might initially have been voidable for economic duress, the fact that the shipping company waited eight months before protesting meant they lost their right to have the new contract for the increased payments set aside. They had, in effect, affirmed it. Answer The Sibeon and The Sibotre status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0 #### Parent (intermediate) annotation Open it The issue of protest in particular, as outlined above by Kerr J in The Sibeon and The Sibotre, proved critical in the case of North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd and Another (The Atlantic Baron) [1979] QB 705. In this case, shipbuilders agreed to build a #### Original toplevel document (pdf) cannot see any pdfs #### Flashcard 1377965837580 Tags #consideration #contract Question The issue of protest in particular, as outlined above by Kerr J in The Sibeon and The Sibotre, proved critical in the case of North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd and Another (The Atlantic Baron) [1979] QB 705. In this case, shipbuilders agreed to build a tanker for the shipping company for$30,950,000, payable in five instalments. The contract required the builders to open a reverse letter of credit for the repayment of instalments in the event of their default. After the first instalment had been paid, the dollar was devalued and the builders threatened not to deliver unless the remaining instalments were increased by 10 per cent. The owners were advised that there was no legal basis for the claim, but were anxious that they might lose a favourable charter with Shell if the ship were not finished on time, and in a telex dated 28 June 1973, they agreed to the increased payments 'to maintain an amicable relationship and without prejudice to our rights'. The builders did this and delivered the tanker; the owners took delivery without protest. Some eight months later, the owners claimed the return of the extra 10 per cent. It was suggested that they did not seek the return of the money sooner because they were concerned about the delivery of a sister ship (The Atlantic Baroness) also being built for them. However, the arbitrators found that this fear was groundless. It was held that, although the agreement to pay the extra money might initially have been voidable for economic duress, the fact that [...] meant they lost their right to have the new contract for the increased payments set aside. They had, in effect, affirmed it.
the shipping company waited eight months before protesting

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
tlantic Baroness) also being built for them. However, the arbitrators found that this fear was groundless. It was held that, although the agreement to pay the extra money might initially have been voidable for economic duress, the fact that <span>the shipping company waited eight months before protesting meant they lost their right to have the new contract for the increased payments set aside. They had, in effect, affirmed it.<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377968721164

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In [case] Lord Scarman laid down these guidelines which can be extrapolated from the above quote. Did the party alleging duress:
1. protest;
2. have an alternative course open to him such as an adequate legal remedy;
3. acquire independent legal advice; and
4. take steps to avoid the new contract as soon as was possible?
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 Lord Scarman laid down these guidelines which can be extrapolated from the above quote. Did the party alleging duress: 1. protest; 2. have an alternative course open to him suc

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377970556172

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 Lord Scarman laid down these guidelines which can be extrapolated from the above quote. Did the party alleging duress: (4)
1. protest;
2. have an alternative course open to him such as an adequate legal remedy;
3. acquire independent legal advice; and
4. take steps to avoid the new contract as soon as was possible?

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 Lord Scarman laid down these guidelines which can be extrapolated from the above quote. Did the party alleging duress: 1. protest; 2. have an alternative course open to him such as an adequate legal remedy; 3. acquire independent legal advice; and 4. take steps to avoid the new contract as soon as was possible?

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377973439756

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377977109772

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
FACTS: The plaintiff contracted to erect stands at Olympia for the defendant. A week before the exhibition, the plaintiff's workman went on strike, refusing to return to work until a pay demand was met. The plaintiff told the defendant that, unless the defendant paid an additional £4,500, the contract would be cancelled. The plaintiff made it clear that the amount to be paid was to be in addition to the contract price. The defendant paid the amount demanded by the plaintiff so as to get the contract performed: the cancellation of the contract would have caused serious damage to the defendant's economic interests. However, the defendant then deducted this figure from the contract price paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then claimed the balance. HELD by the Court of Appeal: Since the cancellation of the contract would have caused serious damage to the defendant's economic interests, they had no choice but to pay the sum demanded by the plaintiff and so it was paid under duress. The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to the extra £4,500 which the defendant had paid under economic duress. Importantly, the defendant acted sufficiently promptly by deducting the extra £4,500 from the contract price thereby avoiding the new agreement – contrast this with the actions of the ship owners in The Atlantic Baron [1979].
B & S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd [1984] ICR 419

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
B & S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd [1984] ICR 419 FACTS: The plaintiff contracted to erect stands at Olympia for the defendant. A week before the exhibition, the plaintiff's workman went on strike, refusing to return to work until a pay

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377979993356

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Unfortunately, in [ case ] the court failed to address the issue of where the dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate pressure lies, although Lord Scarman did give some assistance by stating that pressure may be illegitimate if what is threatened is in itself unlawful. On the other hand, Lord Scarman was careful to point out that duress can exist even if the threat is one of lawful action but the way in which the pressure is exerted is, in itself, illegitimate.
The Universe Sentinel

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Unfortunately, in The Universe Sentinel the court failed to address the issue of where the dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate pressure lies, although Lord Scarman did give some assistance by stating that press

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377981828364

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Unfortunately, in The Universe Sentinel the court failed to address the issue of where the dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate pressure lies, although Lord Scarman did give some assistance by stating that pressure may be illegitimate if [...]. On the other hand, Lord Scarman was careful to point out that duress can exist even if the threat is one of lawful action but the way in which the pressure is exerted is, in itself, illegitimate.
what is threatened is in itself unlawful

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ely, in The Universe Sentinel the court failed to address the issue of where the dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate pressure lies, although Lord Scarman did give some assistance by stating that pressure may be illegitimate if <span>what is threatened is in itself unlawful. On the other hand, Lord Scarman was careful to point out that duress can exist even if the threat is one of lawful action but the way in which the pressure is exerted is, in itself,

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377984711948

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Here, the plaintiff, a firm of road hauliers, contracted with the defendants to deliver cartons of basketware to various branches of Woolworths throughout the UK. A manager of the plaintiff's firm fixed the contract price at a rate of £1.10 per carton, based on an estimate that each load would consist of between 400 and 600 cartons. The first load fell significantly below his estimates, comprising only 200 cartons. The manager then refused to take any further loads unless the defendant agreed to renegotiate the contract price to a minimum of £440 per load. The defendant, a small organisation, was heavily reliant on the Woolworths contract and unable to find another carrier, so reluctantly agreed to pay the imposed minimum charge. At a later stage, the defendant refused to pay the minimum charge and, when sued for the transport charges, lodged a claim of economic duress as a defence. It was held that, where a party has no alternative but to accept revised terms that were detrimental to its interest, this amounted to economic duress that vitiated the apparent consent to the re-negotiated terms.
Atlas Express v Kafco Ltd [1989] 1 All ER 641

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Atlas Express v Kafco Ltd [1989] 1 All ER 641. Here, the plaintiff, a firm of road hauliers, contracted with the defendants to deliver cartons of basketware to various branches of Woolworths throughout the UK. A manager of the

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377986546956

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Atlas Express v Kafco Ltd [1989] 1 All ER 641.
Here, the plaintiff, a firm of road hauliers, contracted with the defendants to deliver cartons of basketware to various branches of Woolworths throughout the UK. A manager of the plaintiff's firm fixed the contract price at a rate of £1.10 per carton, based on an estimate that each load would consist of between 400 and 600 cartons. The first load fell significantly below his estimates, comprising only 200 cartons. The manager then refused to take any further loads unless the defendant agreed to renegotiate the contract price to a minimum of £440 per load. The defendant, a small organisation, was heavily reliant on the Woolworths contract and unable to find another carrier, so reluctantly agreed to pay the imposed minimum charge. At a later stage, the defendant refused to pay the minimum charge and, when sued for the transport charges, lodged a claim of economic duress as a defence. It was held that, where a party [...], this amounted to economic duress that vitiated the apparent consent to the re-negotiated terms.
has no alternative but to accept revised terms that were detrimental to its interest

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
reluctantly agreed to pay the imposed minimum charge. At a later stage, the defendant refused to pay the minimum charge and, when sued for the transport charges, lodged a claim of economic duress as a defence. It was held that, where a party <span>has no alternative but to accept revised terms that were detrimental to its interest, this amounted to economic duress that vitiated the apparent consent to the re-negotiated terms.<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377988644108

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
A subsequent example of an illegitimate threat can be seen in [ case ]. Here the court held that threats to withhold deliveries when under a contractual obligation to prevent delay amounted to illegitimate threats. It was held that it would be unrealistic to expect the other party to seek a mandatory injunction because of the delay of six weeks it would take for Carillion to seek such an injunction. The court held that Carillion had little practical choice but to submit to the illegitimate threats.
Carillion Construction Ltd v Felix (UK) [2001] BLR 1

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A subsequent example of an illegitimate threat can be seen in Carillion Construction Ltd v Felix (UK) [2001] BLR 1. Here the court held that threats to withhold deliveries when under a contractual obligation to prevent delay amounted to illegitimate threats. It was held that it would be unrealisti

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377991527692

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Contrast the behaviour of the wrongdoers in the above cases to that of the defendants in [ case ]. CTN bought cigarettes from Gallaher under a long-standing contract, with each purchase being a separate transaction. Gallaher regularly gave credit to CTN. A consignment of cigarettes worth £17,000 due to be delivered was stolen from a warehouse and there was a disagreement about which party bore the risk. It later became clear that the risk was in fact with Gallaher. However, before it was established that the risk was with Gallaher, one of their representatives made it clear that if CTN did not pay the £17,000 all credit facilities would be withdrawn. CTN decided that paying was the lesser of two evils. They later sought to recover on the grounds that they had only paid as a result of economic duress. It was held that the claim must fail. The threat to remove credit facilities was coercive but not improper. The defendants were using the threat as a means of getting money they believed was due to them and not as a means of extorting money they knew not to be due.
CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 714

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Contrast the behaviour of the wrongdoers in the above cases to that of the defendants in CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 714. CTN bought cigarettes from Gallaher under a long-standing contract, with each purchase being a separate transaction. Gallaher regularly gave credit to CTN. A consignment of cigarette

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377993362700

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Contrast the behaviour of the wrongdoers in the above cases to that of the defendants in CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 714. CTN bought cigarettes from Gallaher under a long-standing contract, with each purchase being a separate transaction. Gallaher regularly gave credit to CTN. A consignment of cigarettes worth £17,000 due to be delivered was stolen from a warehouse and there was a disagreement about which party bore the risk. It later became clear that the risk was in fact with Gallaher. However, before it was established that the risk was with Gallaher, one of their representatives made it clear that if CTN did not pay the £17,000 all credit facilities would be withdrawn. CTN decided that paying was the lesser of two evils. They later sought to recover on the grounds that they had only paid as a result of economic duress. It was held that the claim must fail. The threat to remove credit facilities was coercive but not improper. The defendants were using the threat as [...].
a means of getting money they believed was due to them and not as a means of extorting money they knew not to be due

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
er sought to recover on the grounds that they had only paid as a result of economic duress. It was held that the claim must fail. The threat to remove credit facilities was coercive but not improper. The defendants were using the threat as <span>a means of getting money they believed was due to them and not as a means of extorting money they knew not to be due.<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377995459852

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Finally, for an example of an unlawful threat that did not constitute duress, see [ case ]. In this case, DSND threatened to suspend its work under the contract until Petroleum Geo's provision of insurance and indemnities in respect of the contract was clarified. Clearly this amounted to a threatened breach of contract. However, Dyson J decided that, even if it amounted to a breach which coerced Petroleum Geo, DSND's threat was not illegitimate pressure, rather it was: … reasonable behaviour by a contractor acting bona fide in a very difficult situation.
DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo Services ASA [2000] BLR 530

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Finally, for an example of an unlawful threat that did not constitute duress, see DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo Services ASA [2000] BLR 530. In this case, DSND threatened to suspend its work under the contract until Petroleum Geo's provision of insurance and indemnities in respect of the contract was clarified. Clearly th

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377997294860

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
A contract could be avoided where there is a threat to seize the owner's property or to damage it. Like economic duress, the 'but for' test of causation will be applied.
The Siboen and The Sibotre

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### pdf

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1377999129868

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
The effect of duress (whether it is duress to the person, economic duress or duress to goods) is to make the contract voidable and that the proper remedy is one of rescission.
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### pdf

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378002013452

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Economic duress was first given formal recognition in [ case ].
The Siboen and the Sibotre [1976] 1 Lloyd's Rep 293

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Economic duress was first given formal recognition in Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp. v Skibs A/s Avanti, Skibs A/s Glarona, Skibs A/s Navalis (The Siboen and the Sibotre) [1976] 1 Lloyd's Rep 293.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378005683468

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Facts: In August 1970 the defendants, owners of two tankers, chartered them to the plaintiffs for three years at a rate of 4.40 USD per ton per month. In 1971 the defendants were informed that the plaintiffs had no substantial assets, had suffered enormous losses, were dependent upon a third party’s support for survival and that the third party was willing to let them go into liquidation if the hire rates were not reduced. These statements were untrue. In August 1972 the defendants signed addenda (variation agreements) to the charterparties that the hire rate would be reduced substantially and then after a further dispute the hire price was further reduced. Some time later, the defendant discovered that the plaintiffs were making substantial profits on the vessels. The defendants gave the plaintiffs the option to revert to the original hire rate or of cancelling the charters. When the plaintiffs refused both options the defendants withdrew the vessels in May 1973. The plaintiffs claimed damages from the defendants on the ground that the vessels had been wrongfully withdrawn. The defendants claimed that they were entitled to the rescission of the addenda on the ground of fraudulent and innocent misrepresentation or duress. The court found that the plaintiffs were liable for fraudulent and innocent misrepresentation but that although the defendants were acting under pressure when they signed the addenda this was not such coercion as to amount to duress.
Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp. v Skibs A/s Avanti, Skibs A/s Glarona, Skibs A/s Navalis (The Siboen and the Sibotre) [1976] 1 Lloyd's Rep 293

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp. v Skibs A/s Avanti, Skibs A/s Glarona, Skibs A/s Navalis (The Siboen and the Sibotre) [1976] 1 Lloyd's Rep 293 Facts: In August 1970 the defendants, owners of two tankers, chartered them to the plaintiffs for three years at a rate of 4.40 USD per ton per month. In 1971 the defendants were informe

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378009353484

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378011188492

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd and Another (The Atlantic Baron) [1979] QB 705
Facts: By a shipbuilding contract the builders agreed to build a tanker for the owners, for $30,950,000 payable in five instalments. The contract required the builders to open a reverse letter of credit for the repayment of instalments in the event of their default. After the first instalment had been paid, the dollar was devalued and the builders threatened not to deliver unless the remaining instalments were increased by 10 per cent. The owners were advised that there was no legal basis for the claim, but were anxious that they might lose a favourable charter with Shell if the ship were not finished on time, and in a telex dated 28 June 1973, they agreed to the increased payments, ‘to maintain an amicable relationship and without prejudice to our rights.’ The builders did this and delivered the tanker; the owners took delivery without protest. Some eight months later the owners claimed the return of the 10 per cent extra. It was suggested that they did not seek the return of the money sooner because they were concerned about the delivery of a sister ship (The Atlantic Baroness) also being built for them. However, the arbitrators found that this fear was groundless. It was held that although the agreement to pay the extra money might initially have been voidable for economic duress, the fact that the shipping company waited [...] before taking any action, meant they had affirmed it. Answer eight months status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0 #### Parent (intermediate) annotation Open it ing built for them. However, the arbitrators found that this fear was groundless. It was held that although the agreement to pay the extra money might initially have been voidable for economic duress, the fact that the shipping company waited <span>eight months before taking any action, meant they had affirmed it.<span><body><html> #### Original toplevel document (pdf) cannot see any pdfs #### Flashcard 1378014072076 Tags #consideration #contract Question Facts: The plaintiff’s ship was ‘blacked’ by a trade union, ITF and was unable to leave port as a consequence. In order to secure its release the plaintiff owner agreed, amongst other things, to pay the sum of$6,480 to ITWF’s welfare fund. The ship was allowed to leave after making this and other concessions and the owners sought to recover the money paid to the fund on the grounds that it had been paid under duress. The question the House of Lords had to consider was whether the action of ‘blacking’ the ship fell within the definition of a ‘trade dispute’ under The Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. If it did, the ITWF were protected from court action. It was held that the demand for payment into the welfare fund was not connected with a ‘trade dispute’ and therefore the action of ‘blacking’ the ship to this end was illegitimate. Consequently, the agreement was deemed to have been brought about by economic duress and was set aside.
Universe Tankships Inc. of Monrovia Appellants v International Transport Workers Federation and Others Respondents HL (The Universe Sentinel) [1983] 1 AC 366

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Universe Tankships Inc. of Monrovia Appellants v International Transport Workers Federation and Others Respondents HL (The Universe Sentinel) [1983] 1 AC 366 Facts: The plaintiff’s ship was ‘blacked’ by a trade union, ITF and was unable to leave port as a consequence. In order to secure its release the plaintiff owner agreed, amongst other th

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378017742092

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Facts: Petroleum Geo Services ('PGS') engaged DSND Subsea Limited ('DSND'), a professional diving operation, to carry out works in the North Sea constructing subsea structures. The contract was based on an assumption that the risers (pipes used to transfer produced fluids from the seabed to the surface facilities or lift gas), would have already been installed by PGS. DSND was to have full responsibility for the rest of the subsea system. Later, it transpired that the risers would have to be installed after the subsea system was in place. DSND was concerned about several issues and in particular, about the insurance that was in place. They thought that they would not be covered if they proceeded with the installation without further changes to the insurance and refused to continue with the work. Eventually, a memorandum of understanding ('MOU') and a memorandum of agreement ('MOA') were entered into which set out various changes to DSND’s payment and acknowledged that the risers were to be installed after the subsea system which brought DSND within insurance cover. After the risers were installed, PGS then informed DSND the contract was terminated on the basis of DSND's 'serious breach of contract'. PGS argued that both the MOU and MOA should be set aside for economic duress. The economic duress point was considered as a preliminary issue by the court.
DSND Subsea Limited (Formerly known as DSND Oceantech Limited) v Petroleum Geo Services ASA, PGS Offshore Technology AS [2000] BLR 530

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
DSND Subsea Limited (Formerly known as DSND Oceantech Limited) v Petroleum Geo Services ASA, PGS Offshore Technology AS [2000] BLR 530 Facts: Petroleum Geo Services ('PGS') engaged DSND Subsea Limited ('DSND'), a professional diving operation, to carry out works in the North Sea constructing subsea structures. The contr

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378021412108

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Adam Opel GmbH v Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd Costs [2007] EWHC 3481 (QB)

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Adam Opel GmbH v Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd Costs [2007] EWHC 3481 (QB) Facts: Mitras had agreed to be Adam Opel’s sole supplier in the United Kingdom of bumper mounts for a particular model of van that Adam Opel manufactured. Adam Opel gave notice to Mitras

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378024295692

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
A threat to breach contract may constitute duress.
B & S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd [1984] ICR 419

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A threat to breach contract may constitute duress. B & S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd [1984] ICR 419

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378027965708

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Facts: The plaintiff contracted to erect stands at Olympia for the defendant. A week before the exhibition the plaintiff’s workman went on strike, refusing to return to work until a pay demand was met. The plaintiff told the defendant that unless the defendant paid an additional £4,500 the contract would be cancelled. The plaintiff made it clear that the amount to be paid was to be in addition to the contract price. The defendant paid the amount demanded as the cancellation of the contract would have caused serious damage to the defendant's economic interests. At the end of the contract, the defendant deducted the £4,500 from the contract price. The plaintiff claimed the balance. It was held that the plaintiff had agreed to make the extra payment under duress.
B & S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd [1984] ICR 419

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
B & S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd [1984] ICR 419 Facts: The plaintiff contracted to erect stands at Olympia for the defendant. A week before the exhibition the plaintiff’s workman went on strike, refusing to return to work until a pay

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378031635724

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Facts: The plaintiff, a firm of road hauliers, contracted with the defendants to deliver cartons of basket ware to various branches of Woolworths throughout the UK. A manager of the plaintiff’s firm fixed the contract price at a rate of £1.10 per carton, based on an estimate that each load would consist of between 400 and 600 cartons. The first load fell significantly below his estimates, comprising of only 200 cartons. The manager then refused to take any further loads unless the defendant agreed to renegotiate the contract price to a minimum of £440 per load. The defendant, a small organisation, was heavily reliant on the Woolworths contract and unable to find another carrier, so reluctantly agreed to pay the imposed minimum charge. At a later stage, the defendant refused to pay. The plaintiff sued and the defendant argued economic duress as a defence. It was held that where a party has no alternative but to accept revised terms that were detrimental to its interest, this amounted to economic duress that vitiated the apparent consent to the re-negotiated terms.
Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd [1989] QB 833

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd [1989] QB 833 Facts: The plaintiff, a firm of road hauliers, contracted with the defendants to deliver cartons of basket ware to various branches of Woolworths throughout the UK. A manager of the plai

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378035305740

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Facts: CTN bought cigarettes from Gallaher under a long-standing contract, with each purchase being a separate transaction. Gallaher regularly gave credit to CTN. A consignment of cigarettes worth £17,000 due to be delivered was stolen from a warehouse and there was a disagreement about which party bore the risk. It later became clear that the risk was in fact with Gallaher but before this a representative of Gallaher informed CTN that if CTN did not the pay the £17,000 all credit facilities would be withdrawn. CTN decided that paying was the lesser of two evils. CTN later sought to recover the money paid on the grounds of economic duress. It was held that the threat to remove credit facilities was coercive but not improper. The defendants were using the threat as a means of getting money they believed was due to them and not as a means of extorting money they knew not to be due.
CTN Cash and Carry Limited v Gallaher Limited [1994] 4 All ER 714

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
CTN Cash and Carry Limited v Gallaher Limited [1994] 4 All ER 714 Facts: CTN bought cigarettes from Gallaher under a long-standing contract, with each purchase being a separate transaction. Gallaher regularly gave credit to CTN. A consignment of cigare

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378038975756

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Facts: The plaintiffs carried on the business of a garage and petrol filling station. In 1969 the plaintiffs were in financial difficulties and subject to a contract whereby they had to accept petrol supplies exclusively from the defendants. Contrary to the independent advice of their solicitors, the plaintiffs entered into a transaction with the defendants whereby the plaintiffs granted a lease of their property to the defendants at a peppercorn rent plus a lump sum of £35,000, representing the market value of the lease. As part of the agreement, the defendants granted a lease-back of the property to the plaintiffs for 21 years at a rent of £2,250 per annum, subject to a right to terminate after seven or fourteen years and requiring the plaintiffs to accept all the petrol for their business from the defendants. With the plaintiffs' concurrence the defendants converted the property into a self-service filling station at a cost of £19,000. In 1979, the plaintiffs claimed a declaration that the transaction was voidable for duress (amongst other claims). It was held that there was no duress.
Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd. and Others v Total Oil Great Britain Ltd. [1983] 1 WLR 87

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd. and Others v Total Oil Great Britain Ltd. [1983] 1 WLR 87 Facts: The plaintiffs carried on the business of a garage and petrol filling station. In 1969 the plaintiffs were in financial difficulties and subject to a contract whereby they had to

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378042645772

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Facts: The defendant was a member of 22 SAS Regiment. His squadron was told that all members who wanted to remain in the regiment would be required to sign confidentiality contracts, failing which they would be returned to unit ('RTU'). Involuntary RTU was normally imposed as a penalty for some disciplinary offence or on the ground of professional unsuitability for the SAS. It involved exclusion from the social life of the regiment and loss of its higher rates of pay. The defendant asked a colleague whether he could obtain legal advice on the contract and had been told that he could not. He signed the contract. The defendant later left the army and entered into a contract with a publisher to publish his story. As a result the Attorney-General commenced proceedings in New Zealand for breach of contract, claiming an injunction, damages and an account of profits. In his defence the defendant pleaded amongst other things that he had signed the contract under military orders and that it had been obtained by duress. It was held that the threat of RTU was lawful and justifiable as anyone unwilling to accept the obligation of confidentiality was unsuitable for the SAS in any event.
R v Attorney General of England and Wales [2003] UKPC 22, [2003] EMLR 24

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
R v Attorney General of England and Wales [2003] UKPC 22, [2003] EMLR 24 Facts: The defendant was a member of 22 SAS Regiment. His squadron was told that all members who wanted to remain in the regiment would be required to sign confidentiality contracts, fai

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378046315788

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Facts: Under the terms of a contract by which Cremer was to deliver wheat to Huyton, Huyton was required to pay Cremer on presentation of documents in a particular form. Huyton accepted delivery of the goods but his bank refused to make payment to Cremer on the basis that the documents were not in the approved form. Before going to arbitration, the matter was resolved by Huyton agreeing to pay Cremer on condition that Cremer gave up its claims to various shipping expenses that Cremer would normally have been able to claim back from Huyton. Cremer later contended that it had entered into the agreement on grounds of economic duress. It was held that even if Cremer could show illegitimate pressure (which was doubted) it could not show that the pressure was a significant cause of its entering into the agreement. There was therefore no duress.
Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 620

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 620 Facts: Under the terms of a contract by which Cremer was to deliver wheat to Huyton, Huyton was required to pay Cremer on presentation of documents in a particular form. Huyton accepted

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378048675084

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
If the promisee is simply performing his existing contractual obligations, then this will not constitute consideration for a promise to pay more
Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Campbell 317, 170 ER 1168

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### pdf

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378050510092

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
If, on the other hand, the promisee goes over and above his existing contractual obligations, then this will constitute good consideration
Hartley v Ponsonby 7 Ellis and Blackburn 872, 119 ER 1471

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### pdf

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378052345100

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
If certain criteria are met, performance of existing contractual obligations will constitute good consideration provided the promisor obtains a practical benefit or obviates a disbenefit.
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### pdf

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378056801548

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
For promises to pay more, you will remember from the last chapter that, although the promisee was only doing what he was contractually obliged to do, there would be good consideration if the promisor received a practical benefit ([ case ])
Williams v Roffey

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
pan>For promises to pay more, you will remember from the last chapter that, although the promisee was only doing what he was contractually obliged to do, there would be good consideration if the promisor received a practical benefit (Williams v Roffey)<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378058636556

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
For promises to pay more, you will remember from the last chapter that, although the promisee was only doing what he was contractually obliged to do, there would be good consideration if the promisor [...] (Williams v Roffey)

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
For promises to pay more, you will remember from the last chapter that, although the promisee was only doing what he was contractually obliged to do, there would be good consideration if the promisor received a practical benefit (Williams v Roffey)

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378059685132

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Remember that the law will not look into whether the chattel is of equal monetary value to the sum which was previously owed since consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate
Chappell & Co Limited and Another v Nestlé Co Limited and Another [1960] AC 87

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### pdf

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378062568716

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In the same way, payment of part of the debt before the date on which it is due may be good consideration ([case]), as may payment at a different place provided this was at the creditor’s request (Vanbergen v St Edmund Properties [1933] 2 KB 223) or payment by a third party (Welby v Drake (1825) 1 C & P 557). As long as there is 'fresh' consideration, the parties will be bound by this agreement.
Pinnel’s Case

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In the same way, payment of part of the debt before the date on which it is due may be good consideration (Pinnel’s Case), as may payment at a different place provided this was at the creditor’s request (Vanbergen v St Edmund Properties [1933] 2 KB 223) or payment by a third party (Welby v Drake (1825)

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378064403724

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In the same way, payment of part of the debt before the date on which it is due may be good consideration (Pinnel’s Case), as may payment at a different place provided this was at the creditor’s request ([ case ]) or payment by a third party (Welby v Drake (1825) 1 C & P 557). As long as there is 'fresh' consideration, the parties will be bound by this agreement.
Vanbergen v St Edmund Properties [1933] 2 KB 223

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In the same way, payment of part of the debt before the date on which it is due may be good consideration (Pinnel’s Case), as may payment at a different place provided this was at the creditor’s request (Vanbergen v St Edmund Properties [1933] 2 KB 223) or payment by a third party (Welby v Drake (1825) 1 C & P 557). As long as there is 'fresh' consideration, the parties will be bound by this agreement.</htm

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378066238732

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In the same way, payment of part of the debt before the date on which it is due may be good consideration (Pinnel’s Case), as may payment at a different place provided this was at the creditor’s request (Vanbergen v St Edmund Properties [1933] 2 KB 223) or payment by a third party ([ case ]). As long as there is 'fresh' consideration, the parties will be bound by this agreement.
Welby v Drake (1825) 1 C & P 557

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
t before the date on which it is due may be good consideration (Pinnel’s Case), as may payment at a different place provided this was at the creditor’s request (Vanbergen v St Edmund Properties [1933] 2 KB 223) or payment by a third party (<span>Welby v Drake (1825) 1 C & P 557). As long as there is 'fresh' consideration, the parties will be bound by this agreement.<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378073840908

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Facts: Woodhouse (the appellant buyers) purchased cocoa from the respondent sellers (Nigerian Produce) and the price was to be paid in Nigerian pounds in Lagos. The buyers then asked, by letter, if the sellers would agree to accept sterling in Lagos. The sellers agreed, by letter dated 30 September 1967, that payment could be made 'in sterling and in Lagos'. The pound sterling was then devalued so that it was worth less than the Nigerian pound. The buyers claimed that they could pay one pound sterling to one Nigerian pound. The sellers disagreed. One of the arguments raised by the buyers was that the representation contained in the letter dated 30 September 1967 amounted to an estoppel meaning that the sellers could not go back on it and claim the full price for the contracts.
The letter did not unambiguously state that the price to be paid would be Nigerian pounds for pounds sterling. In order to give rise to an estoppel a promise must be clear and unequivocal. The letter amounted only to a representation that the seller would accept payment in pounds sterling, rather than the Nigerian pound, to the same value as had been agreed. Lord Hailsham LC in particular made it plain that, if a promise would be insufficiently clear to vary the contract, such a promise could not be sufficiently clear to found the defence of promissory estoppel.
Woodhouse A.C Israel Cocoa Limited S.A and Another v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Limited [1972] AC 741

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Woodhouse A.C Israel Cocoa Limited S.A and Another v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Limited [1972] AC 741 Facts: Woodhouse (the appellant buyers) purchased cocoa from the respondent sellers (Nigerian Produce) and the price was to be paid in Nigerian pounds in Lagos. The buyers then asked, by

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378076724492

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In [ case ], it was not inequitable for the buyers to go back on their representation since so little time had elapsed since they had made their representation that the sellers were in no way prejudiced.
The Post Chaser

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In The Post Chaser, it was not inequitable for the buyers to go back on their representation since so little time had elapsed since they had made their representation that the sellers were in no way pre

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378078559500

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
In The Post Chaser, it was not inequitable for the buyers to go back on their representation since [...] that the sellers were in no way prejudiced.

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In The Post Chaser, it was not inequitable for the buyers to go back on their representation since so little time had elapsed since they had made their representation that the sellers were in no way prejudiced.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378083015948

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
It is therefore clear that it is not a requirement that the promisee has been prejudiced by altering his position. However, it is an essential part of the doctrine that it should be inequitable for the promisor to go back on his promise and enforce the strict contractual obligations.
Societe Italo-Belge pour le Commerce et l’Industrie SA v Palm and Vegetable Oils (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (The Post Chaser) [1982] 1 All ER 19

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Societe Italo-Belge pour le Commerce et l’Industrie SA v Palm and Vegetable Oils (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (The Post Chaser) [1982] 1 All ER 19 Facts: The sellers agreed to sell palm oil to the buyers, who agreed to sell this on to the sub-buyers. A clause in the agreement required that a ‘declaration of ship’ was to be made to

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378086685964

Tags
#consideration #contract
Question
Facts: D & C Builders carried out work for Mr Rees and were owed £482 for that work. They chased Mr Rees for payment and finally Mr Rees’s wife, who knew that the builders faced financial difficulties, offered £300 in settlement of the debt stating that if that were not accepted nothing would be paid. The builders accepted and Mrs Rees provided them with a cheque and in return, at her request, the builders provided a receipt containing the words ‘received the sum of £300 from Mr Rees in completion of the account. ...’ The builders later sued for the balance. The court considered as a preliminary issue whether the claim was barred by reason of a settlement having been reached.
Mr Rees could not rely on promissory estoppel because of the pressure his wife placed on the builders to accept the lesser payment. In these circumstances it was not inequitable to allow the builders to go back on the promise to accept less since it had not been freely given. To allow the debtor to rely on the doctrine in such circumstances would be contrary to the equitable maxim that 'he who seeks equity must come with clean hands'.
D & C Builders Limited v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
D & C Builders Limited v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617 Facts: D & C Builders carried out work for Mr Rees and were owed £482 for that work. They chased Mr Rees for payment and finally Mr Rees’s wife, who knew that the builders faced fina

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378089307404

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Equitable Interests These are transferred by [...] (LPA 1925, s 53(1)(c)).
signed writing

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Equitable Interests These are transferred by signed writing (LPA 1925, s 53(1)(c)).

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378090355980

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In [ case ], Romer LJ said that equitable interests could be disposed of by their owner in four ways (see 4.4 above).Note that a settlor may confer on a trustee the power to create new equitable interests by declaring new trusts for persons within the ambit of the power: such declarations fall outside LPA, s 53(1)(c) but if land is involved will fall within s 53(1)(b).
Timpson’s Executors v Yerbury

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Timpson’s Executors v Yerbury, Romer LJ said that equitable interests could be disposed of by their owner in four ways (see 4.4 above).Note that a settlor may confer on a trustee the power to create new equitable in

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378092190988

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In Timpson’s Executors v Yerbury, Romer LJ said that equitable interests could be disposed of by their owner in four ways (see 4.4 above).Note that a settlor may confer on a trustee the power to create new equitable interests by declaring new trusts for persons within the ambit of the power: such declarations fall [inside / outside] LPA, s 53(1)(c) but if land is involved will fall within s 53(1)(b).
outside

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
could be disposed of by their owner in four ways (see 4.4 above).Note that a settlor may confer on a trustee the power to create new equitable interests by declaring new trusts for persons within the ambit of the power: such declarations fall <span>outside LPA, s 53(1)(c) but if land is involved will fall within s 53(1)(b).<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378094025996

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In Timpson’s Executors v Yerbury, Romer LJ said that equitable interests could be disposed of by their owner in four ways (see 4.4 above).Note that a settlor may confer on a trustee the power to create new equitable interests by declaring new trusts for persons within the ambit of the power: such declarations fall outside [statute] but if land is involved will fall within s 53(1)(b).
LPA, s 53(1)(c)

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
disposed of by their owner in four ways (see 4.4 above).Note that a settlor may confer on a trustee the power to create new equitable interests by declaring new trusts for persons within the ambit of the power: such declarations fall outside <span>LPA, s 53(1)(c) but if land is involved will fall within s 53(1)(b).<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378096385292

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In Timpson’s Executors v Yerbury, Romer LJ said that equitable interests could be disposed of by their owner in four ways (see 4.4 above).Note that a settlor may confer on a trustee the power to create new equitable interests by declaring new trusts for persons within the ambit of the power: such declarations fall outside LPA, s 53(1)(c) but if land is involved will fall within [statute].
s 53(1)(b)

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Note that a settlor may confer on a trustee the power to create new equitable interests by declaring new trusts for persons within the ambit of the power: such declarations fall outside LPA, s 53(1)(c) but if land is involved will fall within <span>s 53(1)(b).<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378098482444

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In [ case ], Mr Rose executed two transfers of shares in a private company on 30 March 1943, one by way of gift and the other to trustees. The transfers and share certificates were delivered to the transferees but the directors did not register the transfers until 30 June 1943. It was necessary for estate duty purposes to know when the transfers became effective. Even though legal title did not pass until registration, the Court of Appeal held that the transfers were effective in equity once Mr Rose had done everything in his power to vest the shares in the transferees. Pending registration, the settlor held the legal title to the shares on constructive trust for the transferees. What then would have happened if the directors had refused to register the transfer? The legal title would remain with the settlor but he would have to pay the dividend income to the transferees and vote as directed by them.
Re Rose [1952] Ch 499

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Re Rose [1952] Ch 499, Mr Rose executed two transfers of shares in a private company on 30 March 1943, one by way of gift and the other to trustees. The transfers and share certificates were delivered to the

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378100317452

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In Re Rose [1952] Ch 499, Mr Rose executed two transfers of shares in a private company on 30 March 1943, one by way of gift and the other to trustees. The transfers and share certificates were delivered to the transferees but the directors did not register the transfers until 30 June 1943. It was necessary for estate duty purposes to know when the transfers became effective. Even though legal title did not pass until registration, the Court of Appeal held that the transfers were effective in equity once [...]. Pending registration, the settlor held the legal title to the shares on constructive trust for the transferees. What then would have happened if the directors had refused to register the transfer? The legal title would remain with the settlor but he would have to pay the dividend income to the transferees and vote as directed by them.
Mr Rose had done everything in his power to vest the shares in the transferees

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
fers until 30 June 1943. It was necessary for estate duty purposes to know when the transfers became effective. Even though legal title did not pass until registration, the Court of Appeal held that the transfers were effective in equity once <span>Mr Rose had done everything in his power to vest the shares in the transferees. Pending registration, the settlor held the legal title to the shares on constructive trust for the transferees. What then would have happened if the directors had refused to register t

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378102152460

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In [ case ], the principle in Re Rose was applied by the Court of Appeal to a transfer of registered title to land. Once all the relevant documents had been executed and the transfer stamped and handed to the transferee (but before registration at the Land Registry) the gift was viewed as complete in equity.
Mascall v Mascall (1985) 50 P & CR 119

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Mascall v Mascall (1985) 50 P & CR 119, the principle in Re Rose was applied by the Court of Appeal to a transfer of registered title to land. Once all the relevant documents had been executed and the transfer stamped and ha

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378104249612

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Following the cases of Re Rose and Mascall, it was generally considered that, for the principle to apply, [...], so as to put it out of the donor’s power to change his mind.
the transfer and other documents must either have been sent off for registration or delivered to the donee or his agent

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Following the cases of Re Rose and Mascall, it was generally considered that, for the principle to apply, the transfer and other documents must either have been sent off for registration or delivered to the donee or his agent, so as to put it out of the donor’s power to change his mind.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378105298188

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Following the cases of Re Rose and Mascall, it was generally considered that, for the principle to apply, the transfer and other documents must either have been sent off for registration or delivered to the donee or his agent, so as [...].
to put it out of the donor’s power to change his mind

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
n>Following the cases of Re Rose and Mascall, it was generally considered that, for the principle to apply, the transfer and other documents must either have been sent off for registration or delivered to the donee or his agent, so as to put it out of the donor’s power to change his mind.<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378106346764

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In [ case ], the rule was extended to perfect an imperfect gift of bonds to the donor’s wife, equity positively intervening to oust the common law position, the donor being responsible for her acquiring title to the bonds as one of his appointed executors. Note, however, that the rule in Strong v Bird does not apply to an intention to make a gift in the future, which is in effect merely a promise (not enforceable in the eyes of the law) to make a gift at some later date.
Re Stewart [1908] 2 Ch 251

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Re Stewart [1908] 2 Ch 251, the rule was extended to perfect an imperfect gift of bonds to the donor’s wife, equity positively intervening to oust the common law position, the donor being responsible for her ac

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378108181772

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In Re Stewart [1908] 2 Ch 251, the rule was extended to perfect an imperfect gift of bonds to the donor’s wife, equity positively intervening to oust the common law position, the donor being responsible for her acquiring title to the bonds as one of his appointed executors. Note, however, that the rule in Strong v Bird does not apply to [...], which is in effect merely a promise (not enforceable in the eyes of the law) to make a gift at some later date.
an intention to make a gift in the future

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
donor’s wife, equity positively intervening to oust the common law position, the donor being responsible for her acquiring title to the bonds as one of his appointed executors. Note, however, that the rule in Strong v Bird does not apply to <span>an intention to make a gift in the future, which is in effect merely a promise (not enforceable in the eyes of the law) to make a gift at some later date.<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378110016780

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
It the rule in Strong v Bird applies whether the donee is the sole executor (as in Strong v Bird) or one of several executors: [...].
Re Stewart

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It the rule in Strong v Bird applies whether the donee is the sole executor (as in Strong v Bird) or one of several executors: Re Stewart.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378111065356

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Where a beneficiary is not a party to the deed, the rules on ‘privity of contract’ prevented him suing at common law – [ case ].
Tweddle v Atkinson

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Where a beneficiary is not a party to the deed, the rules on ‘privity of contract’ prevented him suing at common law – Tweddle v Atkinson.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378112900364

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
According to Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425 and Re Bogusz (deceased) [2013] EWCH 1449 (Ch), [2014] 2 WLR 543 a dmc operates under a [...]. However, it is unclear why it would be unconscionable to deny perfecting the donee’s title in the absence of any reliance on the gift (compare Pennington v Waine, see 5.6.1 above). Even more problematic is the suggestion in Re Bogusz that the conscience of the donor’s personal representative is affected (at [27]) even though the donor himself has done nothing unconscionable.
constructive trust

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
According to Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425 and Re Bogusz (deceased) [2013] EWCH 1449 (Ch), [2014] 2 WLR 543 a dmc operates under a constructive trust. However, it is unclear why it would be unconscionable to deny perfecting the donee’s title in the absence of any reliance on the gift (compare Pennington v Waine, see 5.6.1 above).

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378113948940

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
According to [ cases (2) ] a dmc operates under a constructive trust. However, it is unclear why it would be unconscionable to deny perfecting the donee’s title in the absence of any reliance on the gift (compare Pennington v Waine, see 5.6.1 above). Even more problematic is the suggestion in Re Bogusz that the conscience of the donor’s personal representative is affected (at [27]) even though the donor himself has done nothing unconscionable.
Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425 and Re Bogusz (deceased) [2013] EWCH 1449 (Ch), [2014] 2 WLR 543

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
According to Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425 and Re Bogusz (deceased) [2013] EWCH 1449 (Ch), [2014] 2 WLR 543 a dmc operates under a constructive trust. However, it is unclear why it would be unconscionable to deny perfecting the donee’s title in the absence of any reliance on the gift (compa

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378115783948

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
According to Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425 and Re Bogusz (deceased) [2013] EWCH 1449 (Ch), [2014] 2 WLR 543 a dmc operates under a constructive trust. However, it is unclear why it would be unconscionable to deny perfecting the donee’s title in the absence of any reliance on the gift (compare Pennington v Waine, see 5.6.1 above). Even more problematic is the suggestion in [ case ] that the conscience of the donor’s personal representative is affected (at [27]) even though the donor himself has done nothing unconscionable.
Re Bogusz

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
uctive trust. However, it is unclear why it would be unconscionable to deny perfecting the donee’s title in the absence of any reliance on the gift (compare Pennington v Waine, see 5.6.1 above). Even more problematic is the suggestion in <span>Re Bogusz that the conscience of the donor’s personal representative is affected (at [27]) even though the donor himself has done nothing unconscionable.<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378117618956

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
The most notable exception is the donor’s own cheque payable to the donee, as it is not ‘property’ but a revocable mandate to the donor’s bank, which ends on death (Re Beaumont [1902] 1 Ch 886). However, a cheque payable to the donor may be the subject matter of a dmc if [...] (Re Mead (1880) 15 Ch D 651).
it is delivered, even without being endorsed

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
e donor’s own cheque payable to the donee, as it is not ‘property’ but a revocable mandate to the donor’s bank, which ends on death (Re Beaumont [1902] 1 Ch 886). However, a cheque payable to the donor may be the subject matter of a dmc if <span>it is delivered, even without being endorsed (Re Mead (1880) 15 Ch D 651).<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378118667532

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
The most notable exception is the donor’s own cheque payable to the donee, as it is not ‘property’ but a revocable mandate to the donor’s bank, which ends on death (Re Beaumont [1902] 1 Ch 886). However, a cheque payable to the donor may be the subject matter of a dmc if it is delivered, even without being endorsed ([ case ]).
Re Mead (1880) 15 Ch D 651

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
it is not ‘property’ but a revocable mandate to the donor’s bank, which ends on death (Re Beaumont [1902] 1 Ch 886). However, a cheque payable to the donor may be the subject matter of a dmc if it is delivered, even without being endorsed (<span>Re Mead (1880) 15 Ch D 651).<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378120502540

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
The most notable exception is the donor’s own cheque payable to the donee, as it is not ‘property’ but a revocable mandate to the donor’s bank, which ends on death ([case]). However, a cheque payable to the donor may be the subject matter of a dmc if it is delivered, even without being endorsed (Re Mead (1880) 15 Ch D 651).
Re Beaumont [1902] 1 Ch 886

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The most notable exception is the donor’s own cheque payable to the donee, as it is not ‘property’ but a revocable mandate to the donor’s bank, which ends on death (Re Beaumont [1902] 1 Ch 886). However, a cheque payable to the donor may be the subject matter of a dmc if it is delivered, even without being endorsed (Re Mead (1880) 15 Ch D 651).

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378122337548

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
A savings account can be the subject of a dmc, by handing over the essential indicia of title, i.e. the savings account book: [ case ] (bank deposit pass- book); Re Weston [1902] 1 CH 608 (post-office savings bank book).
Birch v Treasury Solicitor [1951] CH 298

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A savings account can be the subject of a dmc, by handing over the essential indicia of title, i.e. the savings account book: Birch v Treasury Solicitor [1951] CH 298 (bank deposit pass- book); Re Weston [1902] 1 CH 608 (post-office savings bank book).

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378124172556

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
A savings account can be the subject of a dmc, by handing over the essential indicia of title, i.e. the savings account book: Birch v Treasury Solicitor [1951] CH 298 (bank deposit pass- book); [ case ] (post-office savings bank book).
Re Weston [1902] 1 CH 608

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A savings account can be the subject of a dmc, by handing over the essential indicia of title, i.e. the savings account book: Birch v Treasury Solicitor [1951] CH 298 (bank deposit pass- book); Re Weston [1902] 1 CH 608 (post-office savings bank book).

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378126007564

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
A savings account can be the subject of a dmc, by [...]: Birch v Treasury Solicitor [1951] CH 298 (bank deposit pass- book); Re Weston [1902] 1 CH 608 (post-office savings bank book).
handing over the essential indicia of title, i.e. the savings account book

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A savings account can be the subject of a dmc, by handing over the essential indicia of title, i.e. the savings account book: Birch v Treasury Solicitor [1951] CH 298 (bank deposit pass- book); Re Weston [1902] 1 CH 608 (post-office savings bank book).

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378127056140

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Further, see [ case ], where the Court of Appeal held that the deceased owner of an absolute equitable interest in a shareholding had not done everything in his power to transfer the shareholding when he had not handed over the share certificate, although he had handed over a share transfer form signed by the registered shareholder.
Zeital v Kaye [2010] EWCA Civ 159

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Further, see Zeital v Kaye [2010] EWCA Civ 159, where the Court of Appeal held that the deceased owner of an absolute equitable interest in a shareholding had not done everything in his power to transfer the shareholding when he h

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378128891148

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Further, see Zeital v Kaye [2010] EWCA Civ 159, where the Court of Appeal held that the deceased owner of an absolute equitable interest in a shareholding had not done everything in his power to transfer the shareholding when [...], although he had handed over a share transfer form signed by the registered shareholder.
he had not handed over the share certificate

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
dy>Further, see Zeital v Kaye [2010] EWCA Civ 159, where the Court of Appeal held that the deceased owner of an absolute equitable interest in a shareholding had not done everything in his power to transfer the shareholding when he had not handed over the share certificate, although he had handed over a share transfer form signed by the registered shareholder.<body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378129939724

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In contrast to the above cases, see [ case ] at 3.2 above, where an effective declaration of trust was found because the court found sufficient intention on the part of Constance to make himself a trustee of the money in the account.
Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In contrast to the above cases, see Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527 at 3.2 above, where an effective declaration of trust was found because the court found sufficient intention on the part of Constance to make himself a trustee of the money in the acc

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378131774732

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In contrast to the above cases, see Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527 at 3.2 above, where an effective declaration of trust was found because the court found [...].
sufficient intention on the part of Constance to make himself a trustee of the money in the account

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In contrast to the above cases, see Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527 at 3.2 above, where an effective declaration of trust was found because the court found sufficient intention on the part of Constance to make himself a trustee of the money in the account.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378132823308

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
If, as in [ case ] (at 5.2 above), the settlor intends to create a settlement by transfer, but fails to vest the legal estate in the trustees, equity will not interpret that transaction as a declaration of trust. The settlor will not be treated as a trustee. A failed method 2 in 5.4 above will not be construed as an effectual method 3.
Milroy v Lord

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
If, as in Milroy v Lord (at 5.2 above), the settlor intends to create a settlement by transfer, but fails to vest the legal estate in the trustees, equity will not interpret that transaction as a declaration

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378135444748

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Choses in Action: Debts and other choses in action (including rights under bank accounts) are transferred by [...], complying with LPA 1925, s 136: notice in writing must be given to the debtor/other party.
writing

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Choses in Action: Debts and other choses in action (including rights under bank accounts) are transferred by writing, complying with LPA 1925, s 136: notice in writing must be given to the debtor/other party.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378136493324

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Choses in Action: Debts and other choses in action (including rights under bank accounts) are transferred by writing, complying with [ statute ]: notice in writing must be given to the debtor/other party.
LPA 1925, s 136

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Choses in Action: Debts and other choses in action (including rights under bank accounts) are transferred by writing, complying with LPA 1925, s 136: notice in writing must be given to the debtor/other party.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378138328332

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Chattels may be transferred [...] (Re Cole [1964] Ch 175) accompanied by the transferor intending to transfer them.
either by a deed of gift or by actual delivery

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Chattels may be transferred either by a deed of gift or by actual delivery (Re Cole [1964] Ch 175) accompanied by the transferor intending to transfer them.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378139376908

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Chattels may be transferred either by a deed of gift or by actual delivery ([ case ]) accompanied by the transferor intending to transfer them.
Re Cole [1964] Ch 175

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Chattels may be transferred either by a deed of gift or by actual delivery (Re Cole [1964] Ch 175) accompanied by the transferor intending to transfer them.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378141211916

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Chattels may be transferred either by a deed of gift or by actual delivery (Re Cole [1964] Ch 175) accompanied by [...].
the transferor intending to transfer them

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Chattels may be transferred either by a deed of gift or by actual delivery (Re Cole [1964] Ch 175) accompanied by the transferor intending to transfer them.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378142260492

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In order to transfer a subsisting equitable interest in land, the settlor must comply with [ statute ]
LPA, s 53(1)(c)

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In order to transfer a subsisting equitable interest in land, the settlor must comply with LPA, s 53(1)(c)

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378144095500

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
The [ statute ] provides that, where a term of a contract purports to confer a benefit on a third party, they may enforce the term in their own right, unless it appears the parties did not intend this – s 1(2).
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s1

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s1 provides that, where a term of a contract purports to confer a benefit on a third party, they may enforce the term in their own right, unless it appears the parties did not intend this

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378145930508

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s1 provides that, [...], they may enforce the term in their own right, unless it appears the parties did not intend this – s 1(2).
where a term of a contract purports to confer a benefit on a third party

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s1 provides that, where a term of a contract purports to confer a benefit on a third party, they may enforce the term in their own right, unless it appears the parties did not intend this – s 1(2).

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378146979084

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s1 provides that, where a term of a contract purports to confer a benefit on a third party, they [...], unless it appears the parties did not intend this – s 1(2).
may enforce the term in their own right

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s1 provides that, where a term of a contract purports to confer a benefit on a third party, they may enforce the term in their own right, unless it appears the parties did not intend this – s 1(2).

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378148027660

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s1 provides that, where a term of a contract purports to confer a benefit on a third party, they may enforce the term in their own right, unless [...] – s 1(2).
it appears the parties did not intend this

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s1 provides that, where a term of a contract purports to confer a benefit on a third party, they may enforce the term in their own right, unless it appears the parties did not intend this – s 1(2).

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378149076236

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s1 provides that, where a term of a contract purports to confer a benefit on a third party, they may enforce the term in their own right, unless it appears the parties did not intend this – [ statute ].
s 1(2)

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
>The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s1 provides that, where a term of a contract purports to confer a benefit on a third party, they may enforce the term in their own right, unless it appears the parties did not intend this – <span>s 1(2). <span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378150911244

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In [ case ], a man who was terminally ill told a woman friend that his house was hers and that the deeds were in a steel box. He slipped the keys to the box into her bag. The Court of Appeal held that there was a valid dmc of the house, by constructive delivery of the title deeds. The personal representatives should perfect the gift.
Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425, a man who was terminally ill told a woman friend that his house was hers and that the deeds were in a steel box. He slipped the keys to the box into her bag. The Court of Appeal held

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378152746252

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425, a man who was terminally ill told a woman friend that his house was hers and that the deeds were in a steel box. He slipped the keys to the box into her bag. The Court of Appeal held that [...]. The personal representatives should perfect the gift.
there was a valid dmc of the house, by constructive delivery of the title deeds

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ad>In Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425, a man who was terminally ill told a woman friend that his house was hers and that the deeds were in a steel box. He slipped the keys to the box into her bag. The Court of Appeal held that there was a valid dmc of the house, by constructive delivery of the title deeds. The personal representatives should perfect the gift.<html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378153794828

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Equitable Proprietary Estoppel This doctrine has sometimes been used to [...] – see, e.g. Gillett v Holt [2000] 2 All ER 289 and Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18. Proprietary estoppel arises where there is an assurance, reliance and detriment, so that it would be unconscionable to go back on the assurance. The award is based on the 'minimum equity required to do justice', so the claimant does not necessarily receive what he had been led to expect.

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Equitable Proprietary Estoppel This doctrine has sometimes been used to give effect to imperfect gifts – see, e.g. Gillett v Holt [2000] 2 All ER 289 and Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18. Proprietary estoppel arises where there is an assurance, reliance and detriment, so that it would be

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378154843404

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Equitable Proprietary Estoppel This doctrine has sometimes been used to give effect to imperfect gifts – see, e.g. [ cases (2) ]. Proprietary estoppel arises where there is an assurance, reliance and detriment, so that it would be unconscionable to go back on the assurance. The award is based on the 'minimum equity required to do justice', so the claimant does not necessarily receive what he had been led to expect.
Gillett v Holt [2000] 2 All ER 289 and Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Equitable Proprietary Estoppel This doctrine has sometimes been used to give effect to imperfect gifts – see, e.g. Gillett v Holt [2000] 2 All ER 289 and Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18. Proprietary estoppel arises where there is an assurance, reliance and detriment, so that it would be unconscionable to go back on the assurance. The award is based on the 'minimum eq

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378156678412

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Equitable Proprietary Estoppel This doctrine has sometimes been used to give effect to imperfect gifts – see, e.g. Gillett v Holt [2000] 2 All ER 289 and Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18. Proprietary estoppel arises where there is [...], so that it would be unconscionable to go back on the assurance. The award is based on the 'minimum equity required to do justice', so the claimant does not necessarily receive what he had been led to expect.
an assurance, reliance and detriment

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
span>Equitable Proprietary Estoppel This doctrine has sometimes been used to give effect to imperfect gifts – see, e.g. Gillett v Holt [2000] 2 All ER 289 and Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18. Proprietary estoppel arises where there is an assurance, reliance and detriment, so that it would be unconscionable to go back on the assurance. The award is based on the 'minimum equity required to do justice', so the claimant does not necessarily receive what h

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378157726988

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Compare [ case ] where the transferor who was domiciled abroad had not obtained Treasury consent (as required by statute at the time) and died before it was obtained. The transfer of shares was ineffective.
Re Fry [1948] Ch 312

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Compare Re Fry [1948] Ch 312 where the transferor who was domiciled abroad had not obtained Treasury consent (as required by statute at the time) and died before it was obtained. The transfer of shares was ineffec

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378159561996

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Where a transfer to a donee or to trustees is incomplete, the general rule is that [...]. Turner LJ in Milroy v Lord (at 5.2 above) said that ‘the settlor must have done everything which was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property and render the settlement binding upon him.’ This has been interpreted as meaning that, where the settlor has done everything within their power, equity may regard the transfer as complete.
equity will not assist

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Where a transfer to a donee or to trustees is incomplete, the general rule is that equity will not assist. Turner LJ in Milroy v Lord (at 5.2 above) said that ‘the settlor must have done everything which was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property and render the settlement

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378160610572

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Where a transfer to a donee or to trustees is incomplete, the general rule is that equity will not assist. Turner LJ in [ case ] (at 5.2 above) said that ‘the settlor must have done everything which was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property and render the settlement binding upon him.’ This has been interpreted as meaning that, where the settlor has done everything within their power, equity may regard the transfer as complete.
Milroy v Lord

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Where a transfer to a donee or to trustees is incomplete, the general rule is that equity will not assist. Turner LJ in Milroy v Lord (at 5.2 above) said that ‘the settlor must have done everything which was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property and render the settlement binding upon him.’ This has

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378162445580

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Where a transfer to a donee or to trustees is incomplete, the general rule is that equity will not assist. Turner LJ in Milroy v Lord (at 5.2 above) said that ‘the settlor must have done [...] and render the settlement binding upon him.’ This has been interpreted as meaning that, where the settlor has done everything within their power, equity may regard the transfer as complete.
everything which was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Where a transfer to a donee or to trustees is incomplete, the general rule is that equity will not assist. Turner LJ in Milroy v Lord (at 5.2 above) said that ‘the settlor must have done everything which was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property and render the settlement binding upon him.’ This has been interpreted as meaning that, where the settlor has done everything within their power, equity may regard the transfer as com

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378163494156

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Where a transfer to a donee or to trustees is incomplete, the general rule is that equity will not assist. Turner LJ in Milroy v Lord (at 5.2 above) said that ‘the settlor must have done everything which was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property and [...].’ This has been interpreted as meaning that, where the settlor has done everything within their power, equity may regard the transfer as complete.
render the settlement binding upon him

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
e or to trustees is incomplete, the general rule is that equity will not assist. Turner LJ in Milroy v Lord (at 5.2 above) said that ‘the settlor must have done everything which was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property and <span>render the settlement binding upon him.’ This has been interpreted as meaning that, where the settlor has done everything within their power, equity may regard the transfer as complete. <span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378164542732

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Also see [ case ]. In that case, the Court of Appeal construed a letter referring to a transfer of shares as a declaration of trust of the shares, rather than a gift. The transferor delivered a letter to the transferee, M. The letter referred to the transferor ‘holding’ shares for M and describing the letter as a ‘declaration’. The transferor did not, however, deliver the share certificates to M, and the forms of transfer and then registration were not completed until a later date. The transferor later challenged the disposition on the ground that the letter constituted a gift, and, as the gift was not completely constituted, it was of no effect. The CA held that on construction the letter was a declaration of trust. This trust took effect until the transfer of legal title took effect by registration of the donee.
Shah v Shah [2010] EWCA Civ 1408

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Also see Shah v Shah [2010] EWCA Civ 1408. In that case, the Court of Appeal construed a letter referring to a transfer of shares as a declaration of trust of the shares, rather than a gift. The transferor delivered a letter

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378166377740

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Also see Shah v Shah [2010] EWCA Civ 1408. In that case, the Court of Appeal construed a letter referring to a transfer of shares as a declaration of trust of the shares, rather than a gift. The transferor delivered a letter to the transferee, M. The letter referred to the transferor ‘holding’ shares for M and describing the letter as a ‘declaration’. The transferor did not, however, deliver the share certificates to M, and the forms of transfer and then registration were not completed until a later date. The transferor later challenged the disposition on the ground that the letter constituted a gift, and, as the gift was not completely constituted, it was of no effect. The CA held that on construction the letter was a declaration of trust. This trust took effect until the [...].
transfer of legal title took effect by registration of the donee

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
he disposition on the ground that the letter constituted a gift, and, as the gift was not completely constituted, it was of no effect. The CA held that on construction the letter was a declaration of trust. This trust took effect until the <span>transfer of legal title took effect by registration of the donee.<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378167426316

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In [ case ], a grandfather endorsed on his lease a memorandum saying ‘This deed and all thereto belonging I give to Edward [a minor] from this time forth.’ The grandfather later died. It was held that the lease had not been legally assigned. (Endorsement on the deed is ineffective; a separate deed should have been used.) Neither could the attempted transfer be construed as a declaration of trust, because he had not intended to declare a trust but to make an outright gift.
Richards v Delbridge (1874) LR 18 Eq 11

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Richards v Delbridge (1874) LR 18 Eq 11, a grandfather endorsed on his lease a memorandum saying ‘This deed and all thereto belonging I give to Edward [a minor] from this time forth.’ The grandfather later died. It was hel

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378169261324

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In Richards v Delbridge (1874) LR 18 Eq 11, a grandfather endorsed on his lease a memorandum saying ‘This deed and all thereto belonging I give to Edward [a minor] from this time forth.’ The grandfather later died. It was held that the lease had not been legally assigned. (Endorsement on the deed is ineffective; a separate deed should have been used.) Neither could the attempted transfer be construed as a declaration of trust, because [...].
he had not intended to declare a trust but to make an outright gift

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
her later died. It was held that the lease had not been legally assigned. (Endorsement on the deed is ineffective; a separate deed should have been used.) Neither could the attempted transfer be construed as a declaration of trust, because <span>he had not intended to declare a trust but to make an outright gift.<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378170309900

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In [ case ], Robert Jones returned home without a present for his baby and, on being chided for this, produced a cheque for £900 payable to himself and said, ‘I give this to baby; it is for himself.’ Robert died shortly afterwards. As he had not endorsed the cheque to his son, the property in it had not been transferred and the court rejected the argument that he had declared himself a trustee of the cheque. He had intended an absolute gift, which entails giving away all benefit to, control of and obligation for the property. This is distinct from the intention to declare oneself a trustee, where the settlor/trustee retains control of the property and assumes the onerous obligation of a trustee.
Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App 25

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App 25, Robert Jones returned home without a present for his baby and, on being chided for this, produced a cheque for £900 payable to himself and said, ‘I give this to baby; it is for himse

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378172144908

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App 25, Robert Jones returned home without a present for his baby and, on being chided for this, produced a cheque for £900 payable to himself and said, ‘I give this to baby; it is for himself.’ Robert died shortly afterwards. As [...], the property in it had not been transferred and the court rejected the argument that he had declared himself a trustee of the cheque. He had intended an absolute gift, which entails giving away all benefit to, control of and obligation for the property. This is distinct from the intention to declare oneself a trustee, where the settlor/trustee retains control of the property and assumes the onerous obligation of a trustee.
he had not endorsed the cheque to his son

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
) LR 1 Ch App 25, Robert Jones returned home without a present for his baby and, on being chided for this, produced a cheque for £900 payable to himself and said, ‘I give this to baby; it is for himself.’ Robert died shortly afterwards. As <span>he had not endorsed the cheque to his son, the property in it had not been transferred and the court rejected the argument that he had declared himself a trustee of the cheque. He had intended an absolute gift, which entails

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378173193484

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Money This is transferred by [...]. Merely writing a cheque in someone’s favour and handing it over to the payee does not transfer the money to them until the cheque has been cleared. A cheque is a mandate (instruction) to the payer’s bank to transfer the money from the payer’s account to the payee (or their account). If the payer dies before the cheque has been cleared, their death countermands the instructions to the bank. If the payee has given no consideration for the cheque, they cannot enforce payment.
delivery

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Money This is transferred by delivery. Merely writing a cheque in someone’s favour and handing it over to the payee does not transfer the money to them until the cheque has been cleared. A cheque is a mandate (instruction

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378174242060

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Money This is transferred by delivery. Merely writing a cheque in someone’s favour and handing it over to the payee does not transfer the money to them until [...]. A cheque is a mandate (instruction) to the payer’s bank to transfer the money from the payer’s account to the payee (or their account). If the payer dies before the cheque has been cleared, their death countermands the instructions to the bank. If the payee has given no consideration for the cheque, they cannot enforce payment.
the cheque has been cleared

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Money This is transferred by delivery. Merely writing a cheque in someone’s favour and handing it over to the payee does not transfer the money to them until the cheque has been cleared. A cheque is a mandate (instruction) to the payer’s bank to transfer the money from the payer’s account to the payee (or their account). If the payer dies before the cheque has been c

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378175290636

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Cheques (and other bills of exchange) made in favour of the transferor may be transferred to a third party (i.e. someone other than the named payee) by [...], according to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. (Note: the Cheques Act 1992, and see Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App 25, below.)
the transferor endorsing the cheque (i.e. signing his name on the back of the cheque)

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Cheques (and other bills of exchange) made in favour of the transferor may be transferred to a third party (i.e. someone other than the named payee) by the transferor endorsing the cheque (i.e. signing his name on the back of the cheque), according to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. (Note: the Cheques Act 1992, and see Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App 25, below.)

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378176339212

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Cheques (and other bills of exchange) made in favour of the transferor may be transferred to a third party (i.e. someone other than the named payee) by the transferor endorsing the cheque (i.e. signing his name on the back of the cheque), according to the [ statute ]. (Note: the Cheques Act 1992, and see Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App 25, below.)
Bills of Exchange Act 1882

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
her bills of exchange) made in favour of the transferor may be transferred to a third party (i.e. someone other than the named payee) by the transferor endorsing the cheque (i.e. signing his name on the back of the cheque), according to the <span>Bills of Exchange Act 1882. (Note: the Cheques Act 1992, and see Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App 25, below.)<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378178174220

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
Cheques (and other bills of exchange) made in favour of the transferor may be transferred to a third party (i.e. someone other than the named payee) by the transferor endorsing the cheque (i.e. signing his name on the back of the cheque), according to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. (Note: the Cheques Act 1992, and see [ case ], below.)
Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App 25

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
nsferred to a third party (i.e. someone other than the named payee) by the transferor endorsing the cheque (i.e. signing his name on the back of the cheque), according to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. (Note: the Cheques Act 1992, and see <span>Jones v Lock (1865) LR 1 Ch App 25, below.)<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378180009228

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In general, with shares of a public limited company (a plc), the directors may not refuse to register the transfer of shares. However, with a private limited company, there is frequently some provision in the company’s articles of association (part of its constitution) restricting the transfer of the company’s shares. Depending on the terms of the articles of association, the directors of a private limited company may refuse to register the transfer. (Further, see [ case ], 5.6.1.)
Re Rose

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
f association (part of its constitution) restricting the transfer of the company’s shares. Depending on the terms of the articles of association, the directors of a private limited company may refuse to register the transfer. (Further, see <span>Re Rose, 5.6.1.)<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378181844236

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In order to transfer the legal estate in land, the requirements of [ statute ] must be satisfied. The transfer must be in a deed. (And see Richards v Delbridge (1874) LR 18 Eq 11, below.)
LPA 1925, s 52(1)

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In order to transfer the legal estate in land, the requirements of LPA 1925, s 52(1) must be satisfied. The transfer must be in a deed. (And see Richards v Delbridge (1874) LR 18 Eq 11, below.)

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378183679244

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
In order to transfer the legal estate in land, the requirements of LPA 1925, s 52(1) must be satisfied. The transfer must be in a deed. (And see [ case ], below.)
Richards v Delbridge (1874) LR 18 Eq 11

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In order to transfer the legal estate in land, the requirements of LPA 1925, s 52(1) must be satisfied. The transfer must be in a deed. (And see Richards v Delbridge (1874) LR 18 Eq 11, below.)

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378185514252

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
The leading case on constitution is [ case ], which provides a clear general statement of the issues. The settlor executed a voluntary deed purporting to transfer shares in the Bank of Louisiana to Lord to be held for the plaintiffs. The shares could only be legally transferred by the appropriate transfer form (not by a deed) followed by registration of the new owner in the company’s books, which was never done. The settlor handed the share certificates to Lord, who had a general power of attorney to act on behalf of the settlor that would have enabled him to register the shares in his name. Dividends were subsequently received by Lord and validly distributed to the plaintiffs until the settlor’s death, three years later. The Court of Appeal in Chancery decided that, as the shares had not vested in Lord, there was no trust of the shares, despite the settlor’s clear intention to create one.
Milroy v Lord (1862) 31 LJ Ch 798

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The leading case on constitution is Milroy v Lord (1862) 31 LJ Ch 798, which provides a clear general statement of the issues. The settlor executed a voluntary deed purporting to transfer shares in the Bank of Louisiana to Lord to be held for the plain

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378187349260

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
The leading case on constitution is Milroy v Lord (1862) 31 LJ Ch 798, which provides a clear general statement of the issues. The settlor executed a voluntary deed purporting to transfer shares in the Bank of Louisiana to Lord to be held for the plaintiffs. The shares could only be legally transferred by [...], which was never done. The settlor handed the share certificates to Lord, who had a general power of attorney to act on behalf of the settlor that would have enabled him to register the shares in his name. Dividends were subsequently received by Lord and validly distributed to the plaintiffs until the settlor’s death, three years later. The Court of Appeal in Chancery decided that, as the shares had not vested in Lord, there was no trust of the shares, despite the settlor’s clear intention to create one.
the appropriate transfer form (not by a deed) followed by registration of the new owner in the company’s books

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
98, which provides a clear general statement of the issues. The settlor executed a voluntary deed purporting to transfer shares in the Bank of Louisiana to Lord to be held for the plaintiffs. The shares could only be legally transferred by <span>the appropriate transfer form (not by a deed) followed by registration of the new owner in the company’s books, which was never done. The settlor handed the share certificates to Lord, who had a general power of attorney to act on behalf of the settlor that would have enabled him to register t

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378188397836

Tags
#constitution #equity #law
Question
It even applies where the donee becomes an administrator on the intestacy of the donor: [case]). Walton J doubted this in Re Gonin [1979] Ch 16 because the donor has no responsibility for making the donee becoming administrator of his estate, so that Strong v Bird would have been decided differently if the defendant had been an administrator and not the executor appointed by the testator,but his remarks were obiter because he found no continuing intention to give a house to the plaintiff.
Re James [1935] Ch 449

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It even applies where the donee becomes an administrator on the intestacy of the donor: Re James [1935] Ch 449). Walton J doubted this in Re Gonin [1979] Ch 16 because the donor has no responsibility for making the donee becoming administrator of his estate, so that Strong v Bird would have be

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378191019276

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
[ statute ] require writing for certain trust dealings.
Law of Property Act 1925 ss. 53(1)(b) and (c)

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Law of Property Act 1925 ss. 53(1)(b) and (c) require writing for certain trust dealings.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378192854284

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
Law of Property Act 1925 ss. 53(1)(b) and (c) require [...] for certain trust dealings.
writing

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Law of Property Act 1925 ss. 53(1)(b) and (c) require writing for certain trust dealings.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378193902860

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
Lifetime (or inter vivos) trusts may be declared informally (orally or even by conduct -– see [ case ], in Chapter 3) unless there is a specific requirement for them to be declared in writing.
Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Lifetime (or inter vivos) trusts may be declared informally (orally or even by conduct -– see Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527, in Chapter 3) unless there is a specific requirement for them to be declared in writing.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378195737868

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
Lifetime (or inter vivos) trusts may be declared informally (orally or even by conduct -– see Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527, in Chapter 3) unless [...].
there is a specific requirement for them to be declared in writing

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Lifetime (or inter vivos) trusts may be declared informally (orally or even by conduct -– see Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527, in Chapter 3) unless there is a specific requirement for them to be declared in writing.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378196786444

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
Lifetime (or inter vivos) trusts may be [...] -– see Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527, in Chapter 3) unless there is a specific requirement for them to be declared in writing.
declared informally (orally or even by conduct

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Lifetime (or inter vivos) trusts may be declared informally (orally or even by conduct -– see Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527, in Chapter 3) unless there is a specific requirement for them to be declared in writing.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378197835020

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
It is noteworthy that to prevent formalities requirements causing unjust results the requirements set out below in the Law of Property Act 1925, s 53(1) do not affect the creation or operation of [...] which necessarily arise informally: see s 53(2).
resulting or constructive trusts

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It is noteworthy that to prevent formalities requirements causing unjust results the requirements set out below in the Law of Property Act 1925, s 53(1) do not affect the creation or operation of resulting or constructive trusts which necessarily arise informally: see s 53(2).

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378198883596

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
It is noteworthy that to prevent formalities requirements causing unjust results the requirements set out below in the Law of Property Act 1925, s 53(1) do not affect the creation or operation of resulting or constructive trusts which necessarily arise informally: see [ statute ].
s 53(2)

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
vent formalities requirements causing unjust results the requirements set out below in the Law of Property Act 1925, s 53(1) do not affect the creation or operation of resulting or constructive trusts which necessarily arise informally: see <span>s 53(2).<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378200718604

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
[ statute ] disapplies s 53(1)(c) for the transfer of equitable interests in shares in public companies the title to which is held by custodians under an electronic trading system owned and operated by CREST Co Ltd. This is vital for the efficient share trading of shares in public companies.
Regulation 38(5) of the Uncertificated Securities Regulations 2001, SI 2001/3755

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Regulation 38(5) of the Uncertificated Securities Regulations 2001, SI 2001/3755 disapplies s 53(1)(c) for the transfer of equitable interests in shares in public companies the title to which is held by custodians under an electronic trading system owned and operat

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378202553612

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
Unfortunately, without full consideration of the issue, Lawrence Collins LJ, obiter dicta in [ case ] opined that declarations of sub-trusts fell outside s 53(1)(c ), while in Kaye v Zeutal [2010] EWCA Civ 159 at [37] the court assumed that this was the case.
Nelson v Greening and Sykes (Builders) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1358 at [56-58]

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Unfortunately, without full consideration of the issue, Lawrence Collins LJ, obiter dicta in Nelson v Greening and Sykes (Builders) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1358 at [56-58] opined that declarations of sub-trusts fell outside s 53(1)(c ), while in Kaye v Zeutal [2010] EWCA Civ 159 at [37] the court assumed that this was the case.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378204388620

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
Unfortunately, without full consideration of the issue, Lawrence Collins LJ, obiter dicta in Nelson v Greening and Sykes (Builders) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1358 at [56-58] opined that [...], while in Kaye v Zeutal [2010] EWCA Civ 159 at [37] the court assumed that this was the case.
declarations of sub-trusts fell outside s 53(1)(c )

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Unfortunately, without full consideration of the issue, Lawrence Collins LJ, obiter dicta in Nelson v Greening and Sykes (Builders) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1358 at [56-58] opined that declarations of sub-trusts fell outside s 53(1)(c ), while in Kaye v Zeutal [2010] EWCA Civ 159 at [37] the court assumed that this was the case.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378205437196

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
Unfortunately, without full consideration of the issue, Lawrence Collins LJ, obiter dicta in Nelson v Greening and Sykes (Builders) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1358 at [56-58] opined that declarations of sub-trusts fell outside s 53(1)(c ), while in [case] at [37] the court assumed that this was the case.
Kaye v Zeutal [2010] EWCA Civ 159

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
fortunately, without full consideration of the issue, Lawrence Collins LJ, obiter dicta in Nelson v Greening and Sykes (Builders) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1358 at [56-58] opined that declarations of sub-trusts fell outside s 53(1)(c ), while in <span>Kaye v Zeutal [2010] EWCA Civ 159 at [37] the court assumed that this was the case.<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378207272204

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
In [ case ], CA held that a contract for valuable consideration to assign an equitable interest in shares in a private company operated to transfer the interest, despite the absence of writing required by s53(1)(c) LPA 1925. The making of a specifically enforceable contract creates a constructive trust in favour of the transferee, so the s 53(2 exception for ‘the creation and operation of resulting or constructive trusts’ applies and dispenses with the requirement for writing under s53(1)(c).
Neville v Wilson [1996] 3 All ER 171

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Neville v Wilson [1996] 3 All ER 171, CA held that a contract for valuable consideration to assign an equitable interest in shares in a private company operated to transfer the interest, despite the absence of writing re

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378209107212

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
In Neville v Wilson [1996] 3 All ER 171, CA held that [...], despite the absence of writing required by s53(1)(c) LPA 1925. The making of a specifically enforceable contract creates a constructive trust in favour of the transferee, so the s 53(2 exception for ‘the creation and operation of resulting or constructive trusts’ applies and dispenses with the requirement for writing under s53(1)(c).
a contract for valuable consideration to assign an equitable interest in shares in a private company operated to transfer the interest

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Neville v Wilson [1996] 3 All ER 171, CA held that a contract for valuable consideration to assign an equitable interest in shares in a private company operated to transfer the interest, despite the absence of writing required by s53(1)(c) LPA 1925. The making of a specifically enforceable contract creates a constructive trust in favour of the transferee, so the s 5

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378210155788

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
See the case of [ case ], where the Court of Appeal refused to construe an imperfect transfer of legal title to shares as an assignment of the equitable interest within s 53 (1) (c), as that was not what was intended, and also the document had not been signed by the equitable owner; it had been signed by their trustee, but the trustee had not been authorised as an agent for the purpose of s 53 (1) (c).
Zeital v Kaye [2010] EWCA Civ 159

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
See the case of Zeital v Kaye [2010] EWCA Civ 159, where the Court of Appeal refused to construe an imperfect transfer of legal title to shares as an assignment of the equitable interest within s 53 (1) (c), as that was not what was

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378211990796

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
[statute] allows for signature by an agent but only if they have been given written authorisation for this.
Section 53(1)(c)

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Section 53(1)(c) allows for signature by an agent but only if they have been given written authorisation for this.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378213825804

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
Section 53(1)(c) allows for [...].
signature by an agent but only if they have been given written authorisation for this

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Section 53(1)(c) allows for signature by an agent but only if they have been given written authorisation for this.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378214874380

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
Section 53(1)(b) applies to express trusts; LPA 1925, s 53(2) provides that the requirements of s 53(1) do not affect the creation or operation of implied, resulting and constructive trusts. Section 53(2) exempts these trusts from the need for writing. A good example of the operation of s 53(2) is the case of [ case ].
Hodgson v Marks [1971] Ch 892

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
t the requirements of s 53(1) do not affect the creation or operation of implied, resulting and constructive trusts. Section 53(2) exempts these trusts from the need for writing. A good example of the operation of s 53(2) is the case of <span>Hodgson v Marks [1971] Ch 892.<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378216709388

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
Section 53(1)(b) applies to [...]; LPA 1925, s 53(2) provides that the requirements of s 53(1) do not affect the creation or operation of implied, resulting and constructive trusts. Section 53(2) exempts these trusts from the need for writing. A good example of the operation of s 53(2) is the case of Hodgson v Marks [1971] Ch 892.
express trusts

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Section 53(1)(b) applies to express trusts; LPA 1925, s 53(2) provides that the requirements of s 53(1) do not affect the creation or operation of implied, resulting and constructive trusts. Section 53(2) exempts these trusts

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378217757964

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
Section 53(1)(b) applies to express trusts; LPA 1925, s [...] provides that the requirements of s 53(1) do not affect the creation or operation of implied, resulting and constructive trusts. Section 53(2) exempts these trusts from the need for writing. A good example of the operation of s 53(2) is the case of Hodgson v Marks [1971] Ch 892.
53(2)

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Section 53(1)(b) applies to express trusts; LPA 1925, s 53(2) provides that the requirements of s 53(1) do not affect the creation or operation of implied, resulting and constructive trusts. Section 53(2) exempts these trusts from the need for w

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378218806540

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
Section 53(1)(b) applies to express trusts; LPA 1925, s 53(2) provides that the requirements of s 53(1) do not affect [...]. Section 53(2) exempts these trusts from the need for writing. A good example of the operation of s 53(2) is the case of Hodgson v Marks [1971] Ch 892.
the creation or operation of implied, resulting and constructive trusts

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Section 53(1)(b) applies to express trusts; LPA 1925, s 53(2) provides that the requirements of s 53(1) do not affect the creation or operation of implied, resulting and constructive trusts. Section 53(2) exempts these trusts from the need for writing. A good example of the operation of s 53(2) is the case of Hodgson v Marks [1971] Ch 892.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378219855116

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
If a person wishes to create a trust on death, they must comply with the [ statute ]. All testamentary dispositions (including trusts) must be in writing, signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time who must attest their witnessing of the signature.
Wills Act 1837, s 9

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
If a person wishes to create a trust on death, they must comply with the Wills Act 1837, s 9. All testamentary dispositions (including trusts) must be in writing, signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time who must attest their witnessi

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378221690124

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
If a person wishes to create a trust on death, they must comply with the Wills Act 1837, s 9. All testamentary dispositions (including trusts) must be [...].
in writing, signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time who must attest their witnessing of the signature

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
If a person wishes to create a trust on death, they must comply with the Wills Act 1837, s 9. All testamentary dispositions (including trusts) must be in writing, signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time who must attest their witnessing of the signature.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378222738700

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
The Law of Property Act 1925, s [ statute ] sets out the formalities for the disposition of a subsisting (or pre-existing) equitable interest, whether in land or pure personalty. The interest is subsisting in the sense that, before the disposition in question, legal and equitable ownership have been separated. Section 53(1)(c) states ‘A disposition of an equitable interest subsisting at the time of the disposition must be in writing signed by the person disposing of the same or by his agent lawfully authorised in writing or by will.’ Failure to comply with s 53(1)(c) makes the disposition void.
53(1)(c)

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Law of Property Act 1925, s 53(1)(c) sets out the formalities for the disposition of a subsisting (or pre-existing) equitable interest, whether in land or pure personalty. The interest is subsisting in the sense that, be

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378224573708

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
The Law of Property Act 1925, s 53(1)(c) sets out the formalities for the disposition of a subsisting (or pre-existing) equitable interest, whether in land or pure personalty. The interest is subsisting in the sense that, before the disposition in question, legal and equitable ownership have been separated. Section 53(1)(c) states ‘A disposition of an equitable interest subsisting at the time of the disposition must be [...].’ Failure to comply with s 53(1)(c) makes the disposition void.
in writing signed by the person disposing of the same or by his agent lawfully authorised in writing or by will

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
rest is subsisting in the sense that, before the disposition in question, legal and equitable ownership have been separated. Section 53(1)(c) states ‘A disposition of an equitable interest subsisting at the time of the disposition must be <span>in writing signed by the person disposing of the same or by his agent lawfully authorised in writing or by will.’ Failure to comply with s 53(1)(c) makes the disposition void.<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378225622284

Tags
#equity #formalities #law
Question
The Law of Property Act 1925, s 53(1)(c) sets out the formalities for the disposition of a subsisting (or pre-existing) equitable interest, whether in land or pure personalty. The interest is subsisting in the sense that, before the disposition in question, legal and equitable ownership have been separated. Section 53(1)(c) states ‘A disposition of an equitable interest subsisting at the time of the disposition must be in writing signed by the person disposing of the same or by his agent lawfully authorised in writing or by will.’ Failure to comply with s 53(1)(c) makes the disposition [...].
void

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
equitable interest subsisting at the time of the disposition must be in writing signed by the person disposing of the same or by his agent lawfully authorised in writing or by will.’ Failure to comply with s 53(1)(c) makes the disposition <span>void.<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378226670860

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question
A distinction is drawn between:
IMPERATIVE words, showing an intention to create a legally binding obligation, which will create a trust; and
PRECATORY words, merely expressing a hope or wish, rather than imposing an obligation, which [...].
will not generally create a trust

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
distinction is drawn between: IMPERATIVE words, showing an intention to create a legally binding obligation, which will create a trust; and PRECATORY words, merely expressing a hope or wish, rather than imposing an obligation, which <span>will not generally create a trust.<span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378227719436

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question
A distinction is drawn between:
IMPERATIVE words, showing an intention to create a legally binding obligation, which [...]; and
PRECATORY words, merely expressing a hope or wish, rather than imposing an obligation, which will not generally create a trust.
will create a trust

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A distinction is drawn between: IMPERATIVE words, showing an intention to create a legally binding obligation, which will create a trust; and PRECATORY words, merely expressing a hope or wish, rather than imposing an obligation, which will not generally create a trust.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378228768012

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question
A distinction is drawn between:
IMPERATIVE words, showing [...], which will create a trust; and
PRECATORY words, merely expressing a hope or wish, rather than imposing an obligation, which will not generally create a trust.
an intention to create a legally binding obligation

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A distinction is drawn between: IMPERATIVE words, showing an intention to create a legally binding obligation, which will create a trust; and PRECATORY words, merely expressing a hope or wish, rather than imposing an obligation, which will not generally create a trust.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378229816588

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question
A distinction is drawn between:
IMPERATIVE words, showing an intention to create a legally binding obligation, which will create a trust; and
PRECATORY words, merely expressing [...], which will not generally create a trust.
a hope or wish, rather than imposing an obligation

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A distinction is drawn between: IMPERATIVE words, showing an intention to create a legally binding obligation, which will create a trust; and PRECATORY words, merely expressing a hope or wish, rather than imposing an obligation, which will not generally create a trust.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378230865164

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question
The turning point is said to be the case of [ case ], where property had been left by the testator to his widow ‘to be at her disposal in any way she may think best, for the benefit of herself and her family’. The widow gave part of the assets by will to someone who was not a member of the family. The court held that the widow was absolutely entitled to the property and could make a valid gift of it to anyone. Referring to the earlier case law (from which the Court of Appeal departed), James LJ said:

. . . in hearing case after case cited, I could not help feeling that the officious kindness of the Court of Chancery in interposing trusts where in many cases the father of the family never meant to create trusts, must have been a very cruel kindness indeed.

Lambe v Eames (1871) 6 Ch App 597

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The turning point is said to be the case of Lambe v Eames (1871) 6 Ch App 597, where property had been left by the testator to his widow ‘to be at her disposal in any way she may think best, for the benefit of herself and her family’. The widow gave part of the a

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378232700172

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question
The turning point is said to be the case of Lambe v Eames (1871) 6 Ch App 597, where property had been left by the testator to his widow ‘to be at her disposal in any way she may think best, for the benefit of herself and her family’. The widow gave part of the assets by will to someone who was not a member of the family. The court held that [...]. Referring to the earlier case law (from which the Court of Appeal departed), James LJ said:

. . . in hearing case after case cited, I could not help feeling that the officious kindness of the Court of Chancery in interposing trusts where in many cases the father of the family never meant to create trusts, must have been a very cruel kindness indeed.

the widow was absolutely entitled to the property and could make a valid gift of it to anyone

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
n left by the testator to his widow ‘to be at her disposal in any way she may think best, for the benefit of herself and her family’. The widow gave part of the assets by will to someone who was not a member of the family. The court held that <span>the widow was absolutely entitled to the property and could make a valid gift of it to anyone. Referring to the earlier case law (from which the Court of Appeal departed), James LJ said: . . . in hearing case after case cited, I could not help feeling that the offic

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378233748748

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question
The importance of construction of the particular words and circumstances is shown by comparing the cases of Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (1884) 27 Ch D 394 and Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury [1905] AC 84. These cases show that phrases such as ‘[...]’ may or may not impose a trust. The crucial factor is whether the context of the will as a whole indicates that this was the testator’s intention.
in full confidence

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
mportance of construction of the particular words and circumstances is shown by comparing the cases of Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (1884) 27 Ch D 394 and Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury [1905] AC 84. These cases show that phrases such as ‘<span>in full confidence’ may or may not impose a trust. The crucial factor is whether the context of the will as a whole indicates that this was the testator’s intention. <span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378234797324

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question
The importance of construction of the particular words and circumstances is shown by comparing the cases of Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (1884) 27 Ch D 394 and Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury [1905] AC 84. These cases show that phrases such as ‘in full confidence’ may or may not impose a trust. The crucial factor is whether [...].
the context of the will as a whole indicates that this was the testator’s intention

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
mparing the cases of Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (1884) 27 Ch D 394 and Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury [1905] AC 84. These cases show that phrases such as ‘in full confidence’ may or may not impose a trust. The crucial factor is whether <span>the context of the will as a whole indicates that this was the testator’s intention. <span><body><html>

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378235845900

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question
The importance of construction of the particular words and circumstances is shown by comparing the cases of Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (1884) 27 Ch D 394 and [case]. These cases show that phrases such as ‘in full confidence’ may or may not impose a trust. The crucial factor is whether the context of the will as a whole indicates that this was the testator’s intention.
Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury [1905] AC 84

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The importance of construction of the particular words and circumstances is shown by comparing the cases of Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (1884) 27 Ch D 394 and Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury [1905] AC 84. These cases show that phrases such as ‘in full confidence’ may or may not impose a trust. The crucial factor is whether the context of the will as a whole indicates that this was th

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378237680908

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question
There may be a problem where words are used which had been held to create a trust in decisions before the change in attitude. Identical words from an older case may be interpreted in the same way if the whole gift is identically worded, because they may have been used as a precedent. [ case ] suggests that, in such a situation, the earlier decision should be followed unless it is clearly wrong. (The court followed the interpretation given to words in Shelley v Shelley (1868) LR 6 Eq. The will had been prepared with professional help and the case of Shelley had then stood for 80 years.)
Re Steele’s Will Trust [1948] Ch 603

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ch had been held to create a trust in decisions before the change in attitude. Identical words from an older case may be interpreted in the same way if the whole gift is identically worded, because they may have been used as a precedent. <span>Re Steele’s Will Trust [1948] Ch 603 suggests that, in such a situation, the earlier decision should be followed unless it is clearly wrong. (The court followed the interpretation given to words in Shelley v Shelley (1868

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378239515916

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question
There may be a problem where words are used which had been held to create a trust in decisions before the change in attitude. Identical words from an older case may be interpreted in the same way if the whole gift is identically worded, because they may have been used as a precedent. Re Steele’s Will Trust [1948] Ch 603 suggests that, in such a situation, the earlier decision should be followed unless [...]. (The court followed the interpretation given to words in Shelley v Shelley (1868) LR 6 Eq. The will had been prepared with professional help and the case of Shelley had then stood for 80 years.)
it is clearly wrong

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
interpreted in the same way if the whole gift is identically worded, because they may have been used as a precedent. Re Steele’s Will Trust [1948] Ch 603 suggests that, in such a situation, the earlier decision should be followed unless <span>it is clearly wrong. (The court followed the interpretation given to words in Shelley v Shelley (1868) LR 6 Eq. The will had been prepared with professional help and the case of Shelley had then stood fo

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378240564492

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question
Where there is no ‘document’ creating a trust, the court must look at [...] to see if there was an intention to create a trust
the words and/or conduct of the parties

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Where there is no ‘document’ creating a trust, the court must look at the words and/or conduct of the parties to see if there was an intention to create a trust

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378241613068

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question
Where there is no ‘document’ creating a trust, the court must look at the words and/or conduct of the parties to see if there was an [...]
intention to create a trust

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Where there is no ‘document’ creating a trust, the court must look at the words and/or conduct of the parties to see if there was an intention to create a trust

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378242661644

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question
If, however, the cheque was paid into an overdrawn account of the company, the money then disappears in discharging the company’s debts so that no trust fund is ever constituted: [ case ].
Moriarty v Various customers of BA Peters plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1604

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
If, however, the cheque was paid into an overdrawn account of the company, the money then disappears in discharging the company’s debts so that no trust fund is ever constituted: Moriarty v Various customers of BA Peters plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1604.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378244496652

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question
If, however, the cheque was paid into an overdrawn account of the company, the money then disappears in discharging the company’s debts so that [...]: Moriarty v Various customers of BA Peters plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1604.
no trust fund is ever constituted

status measured difficulty not learned 37% [default] 0

#### Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
If, however, the cheque was paid into an overdrawn account of the company, the money then disappears in discharging the company’s debts so that no trust fund is ever constituted: Moriarty v Various customers of BA Peters plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1604.

#### Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

#### Flashcard 1378245545228

Tags
#certainties #equity #law
Question