Hunter v moss criticisms

He owned of the 1, issued shares.

Hunter v moss criticisms

Siajunza Hamwala Hunter v Moss [] 1 WLR certainty of subject matter In order to have a valid trust in law one requirement that must apply is the three certainties, these requirements will apply to all private trusts, it is also the case that these requirements are at their most direct and explicit when referring to deliberate settlement of property on trust through creation of an express trust.

It is a requirement that the subject matter be certain, this means that the property that is intended to be in the trust can be separated from other property in order to be identified, if there is no clear separation of goods then the trust will fail as in Re London Wine Co shippers Ltd3.

Re London Wine Co Shippers Ltd were unsecured creditors of a bankrupt wine trading company, and they demanded that they should be able to claim the wine they had bought, however because the wine in stock had not been individually marked as to which batch belonged to who, it was held that no trust had occurred Hunter v moss criticisms the bottles were not individually identifiable, furthermore Oliver J held that: The trust failed and subsequently set a binding precedent in relation to the certainty of subject matter.

Found what you're looking for?

Significantly, he said nothing involving the other shares he owned. This gift of 50 shares was never implemented because of tax concerns, and mainly because Moss had second thoughts. Hunter subsequently sued Moss claiming his promised 50 shares, which rested on two factors.

First, whether the language used was sufficient to create a trust, and secondly, whether or not the trust failed to provide the three certainties because of the lack of separation between the and 50 shares.

Hunter v Moss - Wikipedia

As stated above prior to Hunter, a valid trust requires the three certainties, the ordinary rule for the certainty of subject matter as stated by Lord Langdale, it must be certain what is intended to be trust property by showing clarity otherwise the trust will fail.

The significance of this case is that for the first time in trust history, a trust was held to be valid without the need for clarity as to which property is intended to transferred upon trust, although Hunter is commonly cited with intangible, identical property, Lord Dillion never actually said such a thing, granted it is the obvious conclusion to draw from his statement however it does leave the question; how can his statement be interpreted?

The tracing mechanism mentioned by Martin acts as a brilliant remedy for the beneficiary hunter which means there is no need for the separation of property even with an inter vivos trust, however, one can now argue now that if this tracing mechanism works, it should also work where the courts are dealing with tangible property?

Perhaps the only logical explanation of the decision in Hunter is by looking at the contrast between Goldcorp and Hunter Alastair Hudson implies, the outcome of the case is because in Goldcorp the court was concerned solely with the allocation of property rights, whereas in Hunter v Moss the court was concerned with preventing the employer from benefiting from a breach of contract, perhaps the courts primary intention was to award Hunter the shares he was promised, without proper consideration of what this decision would do to the law.Hunter v Moss [] 1 WLR is an English trusts law case from the Court of Appeal concerning the certainty of subject matter necessary to form a trust.

Moss promised Hunter 50 shares in his company as part of an employment contract, but failed to provide them. Hunter v Moss [] 1 WLR (certainty of subject matter) In order to have a valid trust in law one requirement that must apply is the three certainties, these requirements will apply to all private trusts, it is also the case that these requirements are at their most direct and explicit when referring to deliberate settlement of property on trust through creation of an express trust.

Hunter v Moss formed the basis of the decision in Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration), but the reason of Dillon LJ was rejected by the Australian Supreme Court of New South Wales in White v Shortall, though the court reached the same conclusion.

Hunter V Moss Criticisms | Free Essays - webkandii.com

Apr 04,  · I've read a few different books on the topic of certainty of subject matter and obvious Hunter v Moss is where some of the critique comes out.

Hunter v Moss formed the basis of the decision in Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration), but the reason of Dillon LJ was rejected by the Australian Supreme Court of New South Wales in White v Shortall, though the court reached the same conclusion.

Certainty of subject matter and the critcisms of hunter v moss When creating an express trust knight and knight articulated that there must be certainty of subject matter, certainty of .

Hunter v moss criticisms
Hunter V Moss Criticisms