Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Which statutory provision of the LPA 1925 sets out the purpose of constructive trusts?
|
Section 53(2) LPA 1925- constructive trusts respond to unconscionability and are IMPOSED on parties through operation of law.
|
|
|
Which case was the foundation of common intention constructive trusts? and what was the dicta?
|
Gissing v Gissing [1971]
-a trusts will be construed when the trustee, by his words or conduct, has induced the beneficiary to: i) act to his detriment; or ii) in the reasonable belief that he was acquiring a beneficial interest in the land. |
|
|
Which model of Lord Denning's did the common intention constructive trust prevail over?
|
The new model constructive trust
|
|
|
What are the 2 requirements under acquisition for common intention constructive trusts?
|
1) common intention; and
2) detrimental reliance |
|
|
Must a common intention be express or implied?
|
either.
|
|
|
What was the dicta in Lloyds Bank v Rossett [1991]?
|
a house was bought in the husband's sole name and he provided all the capital.
The wife renovated and decorated the property. The HL held that a common intention could be express or implied, however mere renovation was insufficient to establish an inferred common intention. |
|
|
Which case states that an express common intention will be an agreement, arrangement or understanding reached between the parties that the property was to be shared beneficially?
|
Lloyds Bank v Rossett [1991]
|
|
|
Which case stated that if the legal title owner led the other party to believe they would acquire an interest in the property, and express common intention would be found? (excuse case)
|
Eves v Eves [1975]
|
|
|
Which cases stated that an assurance that improvements to the cottage and business would 'benefit them both' was NOT an express common intention (too vague) and was also did not constitute an inferred common intention, as there was no direct financial contribution/ mortgage repayment?
|
James v Thomas [2007]
|
|
|
How difficult is it to establish and inferred common intention?
|
difficult- very high hurdle.
|
