Re Rose Case Study

1483 Words6 Pages
The general rule is that, if an attempted transfer of property to trustees is imperfect, the trust is not completely constituted. Where consideration has been provided, the transfer may be treated as perfect in the eyes of equity even though in law it is not. Where there has been no consideration, however, no effective trust is created, since equity will not assist a volunteer. A failed gift cannot then be saved by treating it instead as a self-declaration of trust: if a settlor intends to use one method to confer a benefit on a person but fails to do so effectually, equity will not save the gift Milroy v Lord. Over the years, the courts have found a number of ways to avoid the harshness of the rule that equity will not perfect an imperfect…show more content…
Here, Ada Crampton, the donor, intended to transfer 400 shares of a company to her nephew, Harold Crampton, and intended him to take up the directorship of that company. The Court of Appeal held that the execution and delivery of share transfer forms to an intermediary was sufficient to transfer the equitable interest. Arden LJ, citing Lord Browne-Wilkinson in T Choithram International v Pagarani in support, held that unconscionability was a trigger causing an interim constructive trust to arise while pending perfection of legal…show more content…
2) ) Arguably in Pennington, the donee had not incurred any actual “detriment” and also the donor had not gain any “benefit” to justify a finding of unconscionability. Furthermore, the donor in Pennington was never trying to resile from her gift, thus, the test for unconscionability was come from a total hypothetical basis. That is why some scholars considered unconscionability in Pennington as “a vehicle for arriving at a desired

More about Re Rose Case Study

Open Document