Cycle 7 essays
Understanding Constructive Trusts Quiz
Test your knowledge on the intricate concept of constructive trusts, particularly focusing on common intention and the nuances of joint and sole legal ownership.
- Evaluate the stages of constructive trusts.
- Explore the role of detrimental reliance.
- Analyze critical case law and theories.
Two stages of common intention constructive trusts
- Establishing the constructive trust
- Quantifying the beneficial interests
Sole legal owner when establishing =
Had a genuine (express, or inferred only on grounds of contribution to purchase) common intention that other party should have a share in the property - ROSSET
Joint legal owner when establishing =
You can infer from the whole course of conduct (that they should get more than 50%) - STACK ; JONES
When establishing, detrimental reliance is required for both sole and joint ownership
When establishing, detrimental reliance is required for both sole and joint ownership
Beef about joint legal ownership establishing 'whole course of conduct' ?
Some sole legal cases have used the ‘whole course of conduct’ but haven’t overruled rosset yet = us confused (GEARY ; ASPDEN) BUT CAN BE ARGUED ITS MORE FLEXIBLE
What does MEE say on Rossett about establishing?
Rossett relies too much on half remembered conversations and doesn’t acknowledge non-financial contributions
The whole course of conduct approach is still uncertain because like how do you know what shows what.
The whole course of conduct approach is still uncertain because like how do you know what shows what.
What is the confusion around detrimental reliance?
Stack and Jones don’t really mention it which questions whether its really a requirement or is it just so obvious that it doesn’t need acknowledging
Inference and imputation used interchangeably --> how were the judges split in jones?
2 imputed and 2 inferred
What did the 2 inferring judges in jones say?
Noted that the difference in practice is negligible/non existent.
Why are we disregarding the use of imputation in establishing but using it in quantifying?
Why are we disregarding the use of imputation in establishing but using it in quantifying?
MEE'S ISSUES WITH IMPUTATION:
Said JONES imputed the intention based on the fact that he never used his interest/property
But ROSSET was like intention as to use is not the same as intention as to interest (because he didn’t use it doesn’t mean he didn’t want it)
Says imputation doesn’t reflect peoples actual intentions
Collins confusing point on courts inferring
Says court never infer unfair intentions, even though unfair intentions exist
{"name":"Cycle 7 essays", "url":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/QPREVIEW","txt":"Test your knowledge on the intricate concept of constructive trusts, particularly focusing on common intention and the nuances of joint and sole legal ownership.Evaluate the stages of constructive trusts.Explore the role of detrimental reliance.Analyze critical case law and theories.","img":"https:/images/course3.png"}
More Quizzes
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
10591
Indian Contract Law Quiz
52570
CYCLE 1 LAND
1589
Indian Contract-Nature of Contract
105287
Indian Contract
105432
Contracts Midterm Restatements- Mutual Assent
15813
Indian Contract Act-Consideration
105272
Indian Contract Act
105338
Indian Contract Act-Consideration
105304
Legal Maxims-1
105106
48-59 roman law
10583
Business Law
178146