Constitution

Question 1

Jones v Lock

Answer 1

• Mutually exclusive
• Father tried to give a gift to his child but did not do it properly
• Child messed up formalities for creating a gift
• Father died
• Held that there was No declaration of trust. The gift remained barred

Question 2

Re Cole

Answer 2

• Intention and delivery, one is insufficient
• Mr Cole shown intention by words to make a gift to Mrs Cole
• Did not delivery anything to her and she hadn’t accepted
• Held that physical delivery (some form of acceptance) is required by law to perfect a gift

Question 3

Milroy v Lord

Answer 3

Inter vivos - Held that there are three ways of transferring property to somebody else–
1. Gift – You are given both the legal and equitable interest to the precipitant.
2. Transfer to a trustee (another person) -
3. Declare oneself trustee – Settler and trustee are the same person.

Question 4

Jaffa v Taylor Gallery Ltd

Answer 4

• An example of the latter method occurred in here, where the transfer of a picture to trustees was valid without physical delivery, as the deed setting up the trust vested title in them.
• One of the trustees lived in Northern Ireland and, as the judge commented, it would be absurd to require the painting to be physically taken round all the trustees before title passed.

Question 5

Mascall v Mascall

Answer 5

• LPA 2002 S7 - Must register transfer or registered land at land registry
• This is a case on transfer to legal ownership.
• ‘Every effort test.’
• When father made every effort, the equitable transfers,
• Son ceases the equitable interest.
  Equity will not come to the aid of a volunteer.
• The donor handed over a deed of transfer to the donee, which was sufficient to enable the donee to become registered as legal owner. The donor later, unsuccessfully, tried to change his mind.

Question 6

Milroy v Lord

Answer 6

‘every effort test’
- Have to do everything necessary
- Settlor executed a deed to transfer the shares to Lord to hold on trust for Milroy.
- Held that the transferor must do everything necessary to transfer the shares.
- E.g.: sending the share certificate and stock transfer form to the company who will update the register.
- Deed was insufficient.
- The share remained with the settlor.

Question 7

Re Rose

Answer 7

‘Every effort test’
* Transfereror making every effort is sufficient
* 30th March – Submitted document
* Equitable interest passed to his wife, husband still had legal interest (so owned the shares on trust for his wife)
* 30th June – company updated its shareholder register – legal interest passed to his wife (She now has both legal and equitable interest in the shares)

Question 8

Pennington v Waine

Answer 8

‘Every effort test’
* Sufficient is there is unconscionability.
* Aunt sent forms to company auditor, nephew relied on assurance to become a company director
* Sufficient if the transferor had intention to transfer and in circumstances it would be unconscionable for it not to happen.
* Detrimental reliance was important.
* Every effort was NOT met.
* It was held the equitable title relied on the shares of the company.

2 Factors:
1. The aunt intended it to happen (did not mention the share in her will because she already gave the share)
2. The court took the view that it would be unconscionable which means unfair for the shares to pass the nephew.

Principle is that there must be intention by the transferee and unconscious for indictable reliance not to be passed on the recipients.

Zeital v Kaye tells us that this case went too far.