1. Clarifying Identity on Death: if 5% of shares was declared in a will, would certainly be valid, as the executors of the will would have resolved the uncertainty and distributed. 2. Types of Share: If two types of shares held, or shares in two companies, this would have voided for uncertainty as unknown to which trust refers 3. Chattels in a Bulk: Requires segregation of particular tangible item (London Wine [1986] and is distinct from the question of shares.
4. Tangible and Intangible Property: more benevolent approach to identification of intangibles. Intangibles are exactly the same, but tangibles are not (e.g in London Wine, some bottles may be corked, some may not) 5. Intention to Create a Trust from a Particular Fund: Even where SM of a trust is intangible, it will not be created if the settlor did not intend part of that fund to be held on trust (MacJordan Construction [1991]). 6. Practical Implications: it is not possible to identify any clear rationale as to how the trust works in practice. Impacts tracing.
7. Alternative Constructions of the Transaction: co-ownership analysis confirmed in Pearson v Lehman Bros [2010] - such a trust works by creating a beneficial coownership share in the identified fund, rather than in a conceptually much more difficult notion of seeking to identify a particular part of that fund which the beneficiary owns outright. The consequence of this analysis will be that any shortfall in the value of the fund would be shared between the beneficiaries in proportion to their respective interest in the fund.
Comments
No comments have yet been made