Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Compose a 2500 words assignment on trust law for the prevention of fraud. Needs to be plagiarism fre | Economics Write
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

Compose a 2500 words assignment on trust law for the prevention of fraud. Needs to be plagiarism free! In case of trust of personal property, no formalities are required. However, to create a trust of land the formal requirement is that they must be manifested in writing as provided by S.53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925. This requirement applies only to express trusts, and not to resulting, implied or constructive trusts as provided by S.53(2) Law of Property Act 1925 e.g. in “Tinsley v. Milligan”. It should be noted, however, that S.53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925 does not require the declaration to be made in writing but only that it must be “manifested and proved by some writing”. The declaration should be manifested by the settlor himself and not by his agent. &nbsp.Caroline Lody in her article stated: “draft Trusts (Concealment of Interests) Bill which is aimed at simplifying the law and ensuring that it is applied equally and justly through giving the court discretion to determine the effect of the illegality concerned”.&nbsp.&nbsp.The reason for doing this is an ancient one as provided by S.7 Statute of Frauds 1677. A beneficial interest under a trust is a right which may be disposed of by beneficiaries. Such a disposition, whether for real or personal property, must be in writing signed by the beneficiary or his agent as per S.53(1)(c) Law of Property Act 1925.&nbsp.In the case of “Grey v. IRC”, there was an attempt to avoid paying stamp duty. The settlor made six settlements in favor of his grandchildren. Later he transferred shares to trustees to hold on bare trust for himself. Then he orally instructed the trustees to hold that property upon the trusts of the six settlements. Later, the trustees executed documents to confirm the oral direction. It was accepted that the trusts were validly declared but the main issue was whether they were declared by the settlor’s oral declaration, in which case the subsequent documents passed no beneficial interest. or whether, as the Revenue argued, the documents effected a disposition of an existing equitable interest within S.53(1)(c) Law of Property Act 1925, in which case they were subject to stamp duty. The House of Lords held that while the trustees held the shares as nominees for the settlor, the settlor owned the entire beneficial interest. When the trustees held them upon the trust of the settlements, the beneficial interest passed from the settlor to the beneficiaries under the settlement. Thus, the oral directions were a disposition and needed to be in writing. So, stamp duty was payable. Green (1984) says that this case is also authority for the proposition that an oral direction to bare trustees to transfer property to other trustees on different trusts is similarly void unless in writing.

error: Content is protected !!