• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Explain the principles relating to certainty of subject matter and critically evaluate the decision in Hunter v Moss.

Extracts from this document...


"Hunter v Moss had been argued and decided before the decision had been given in Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd. It has therefore been submitted to criticism on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the ringing endorsement by the Privy Council of Re London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd" In the light of the statement above I am going to with reference to the decided cases explain the principles relating to certainty of subject matter and critically evaluate the decision in Hunter v Moss. Trusts developed in England during the 12th and 13th centuries. Trusts are widely considered to be the most innovative contribution to the English legal system. There is no successful definition of a trust till date, even after many attempts, but it is easier to say what a trust is by description. According to common law a trust is an arrangement that can come in a variety of forms where by property, money or other belongings are managed by a person (or persons or organisations) for the benefit of another, but is owned by the trust. In the case of Knight v Knight Lord Langdale MR identified that in order for a trust to be valid the three certainties must be complied with namely, certainty of intention, certainty of subject matter and certainty of objects. ...read more.


So by contractual agreement the exchange would have to keep all the bullion the customer ordered in their vaults in case the customer asked for delivery. After the exchange fell into insolvency this practice slipped it only took delivery of as much bullion as it usually needed to satisfy a customers daily needs. Therefore the contract with their customers was broken as they failed to buy all the bullion in the order. When the exchange went into insolvency it did not stock as much bullion as needed to satisfy the customers' orders even though they had took their money. There were three types of customers who wanted to claim off the exchange saying, that the bullion by contract was held on trust for them. The first type of claimants had proprietary rights in specifically identifiable bullion that the exchange had acquired physically after their order's there claim was successful as the bullion was segregated from all the other bullion that was stored in the vault, therefore the claimants satisfied the requirement of certainty of subject matter. The second type of claimants didn't have their bullion separated from the rest in the vault so there claim failed, as they were not able to identify what belonged to them, so they acquired no rights under the trust. ...read more.


Looking at shares it is no less important to identify which property is held in the trust and which is not. Secondly the Court of Appeal could have decided there is valid trust in Hunter v Moss as there was enough shares to satisfy the claim, it could not be the same in Goldcorp as there were more claims then there was property to satisfy them. Also there is no reason why there should be any different rules between tangible and intangible property. There would have been a better distinction between cases where legal owners of the property is solvent or insolvent. Where the property is solvent it would be possible to argue that it does not matter if the property is segregated as long as there is some legal obligation between the parties. Where the property is insolvent issues regarding unsecured creditors arises. Therefore if a distinction has to be made it should be between solvent and insolvent trustees. 14 In conclusion it can be seen that no trust can be formed unless it complies with the certainties. Where there is no certainty of subject matter, there can be no trust. The property would then remain with the settlor or if dead will pass by will or the intestacy rules. The trust fund must be identifiable so should be segregated from other property. However it appears there is no need to segregate if the property is intangible, segregation is only necessary in tangible property. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Equity & Trust Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Equity & Trust Law essays

  1. Major case: Cox Communications.

    company approximately three years following the closing of the offering and (b) beneficial ownership of either dividend-paying capital securities or debentures issued by a business trust subsidiary of the company or U.S. treasury securities. Proceeds from the offering will be used to repay outstanding indebtedness under the company's bank credit facility and for general corporate purposes, including potential future acquisitions.

  2. "It is submitted that this case [i.e. Pennington v Waine] dangerously undermines the established ...

    Similarly, this exception is further expanded by the courts in Re Rallis Will Trusts (1964)21 where they decided that a continuing intention of the transferor to make the gift is no longer needed. Both of these judgements may be criticised for adding more confusion, removing the strength of the maxim

  1. The main topics that will be covered include the Re ROSE principle, the Rule ...

    Unconstituted trusts have also benefited from this rule as can be seen in Re RALLI'S WILL TRUSTS, but much of the criticism levied on this rule has been due to the inclusion of administrators, as these are appointed by the court which the testator has no control over.

  2. Equity Exam Notes

    Certainty as to the Object of the Trust Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804) - stands for authority of the beneficiary principle meaning that every non-charitable trust must have an identifiable benedicary/ies.

  1. Equity and Trusts - Scenario based. There are many types of trusts[1]; this ...

    Both tests can again be verified, so there is a certainty of object. The formalities have been met in this case but the transfer has not been completely constituted. But by the case if the settlor does all he can to put the trust forward then it will be properly constituted.

  2. How important is the beneficiary principle in contemporary trust law

    and perhaps it was ethical to allow the gravestones to be erected. The Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 set out clauses to ensure that trusts came to an end, generally after eighty years under section 1 of the Act and section 3 provides a 'wait and see' approach to trusts.

  1. Knight v. Knight (1840).

    It was held that the wife took absolutely. It is not simply a matter of the particular words used but the intention of the donor. The words used in this case sound uncertain since John has said 'she can buy' rather than 'she must buy' and it could be argued

  2. Is equity the answer to failings of the common law?

    to show that the property is to revert to the donor if the donor should recover DO MORE DETAIL ON D.M.C. SEE NOTES!!!!!!!!!!!!! -Proprietary Esstopel: (MUST CHANGE WORDING!!!!!!)Issues concerning esstoppel arise where a party has acted upon there detriment due to a promise made by another, to his or her detriment.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work