Equity and Trust Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Equity and Trust - Essay Example That’s when Lord Longdale ruled that Richard Knight did not make a trust, because his will did not satisfy the three certainty tests named above (Brophy, 2008, p. 91). In the case above, the provisions satisfy only one certainty that is certainty of intention. In Jones vs. Lock 1865, the court denoted that for a trust to be established, it must pass the certainty of intention test. In this case, Robert Jones loosely said that he was going to keep son 900 pounds for his child. Before altering his will, he died. The issue under consideration in this case therefore was on whether the 900 pounds he had offered belonged to the child, or to the residuary legatees. In arriving at their decision, the court held that Robert Jones did not have any intention of initiating a trust for the child; therefore the money was still under his residuary legatees. On this basis therefore, the court denoted that certainty of intention must be proved for a trust be valid. This argument is further rei nforced in the case involving Paul vs. Constance 1977. In this case, the court denoted that prove of certainty of intention is an important factor in determining the validity of a trust (Harrison, 2012, p.29). Sam, in his will provides for the distribution of his shares to Margaret his sister, and four grandchildren. However, he does not specify the amount of shares to be distributed to the individuals. In the case law that involved Palmer vs Simmonds 1854, the court denoted that there wasn’t any trust established when the testator wrote in his will that the bulk of his property should go to four unnamed individuals on an equal measure, but subject to a number of stipulations (Brophy, 2008, p. 41). This is because the Testator was not specific on the value of his property that was to be shared. On this basis therefore, the above provision is not valid, and does not create a trust, because he does not prove certainty of subject matter. Another issue that arises also is that Sa m does not give the names of the grand children under consideration, and it is therefore difficult for the trustees to know whom Sam had in mind. In the case law involving IRC vs. Broad way Cottages, the court denoted that in an instance where it is difficult to establish the specific beneficiaries of a will, then the trust established is void (Brophy, 2008, p. 56). In this case, the testator wrote a will denoting that any income derived from his property should benefit the settlor’s wife, and other relations of the settler. The term relation was not certain, making the will void. On this basis therefore, the provisions in this will are void, and do not establish a trust. (b) In this case, Sam satisfies the certainties established in the Case law of Knight vs. Knight. This provision satisfies the certainties of object, intention and subject matter. For instance, Sam identifies the object to be disposed, and that is a bronze statue of a musician; and the beneficiaries who are the grandchildren of Fiona. The case involving Re Kayford 1975 is a perfect example of a case law that depicts the importance of certainty of intention in a will (Brophy, 2008, p. 67). In this case, the managers of Kayford mailing company were concerned that their organization will be insolvent. On this basis, they opened an account with another bank to keep payments that