what does the second certainty state?
It is a requirement that the subject matter be certain — that the property intended to be in the trust be separated from other property, showing clarity in what is intended to be trust property. If there is no clear separation, the trust will fail.
Three certainties
It is a requirement that the subject matter be certain — that the property intended to be in the trust be separated from other property, showing clarity in what is intended to be trust property. If there is no clear separation, the trust will fail, as in "Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd".
inland revenue commissioners v broadway cottages trust 1955 ch 20 It states that if there are any potential beneficiaries who the trustees are not certain of, or the trustees cannot compile a complete list, the trust is void for uncertainty. what is this three certainties all about? It refers to a rule within English trusts law on the creation of express trusts that, to be valid, the trust instrument must show certainty of intention, subject matter and object. what is the above-mentioned instrument all about? It is an instrument in writing executed by a settlor used to constitute a trust. who is the settlor in this case? He is a trustor, or occasionally, a grantor or donor. who created these certainties? UNANSWERABLE list those three certainties. Certainty of intention", "Certainty of subject matter" and "Certainty of object". what does the first certainty state? To create an express trust without being aware that one is doing so, so long as the court can determine from the person's intention that a beneficial entitlement should be conferred which the law will enforce.
wiki:9190480
Three certainties [SEP] Certainty of subject matter
It is a requirement that the subject matter be certain — that the property intended to be in the trust be separated from other property, showing clarity in what is intended to be trust property. If there is no clear separation, the trust will fail, as in "Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd". This point was illustrated by "Re London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd", where creditors of a bankrupt wine trading company argued that they should be able to claim the wine they had paid for. The problem was that these bottles were not individually identifiable, and Oliver J held that: A sum of money, say 10,000, does not satisfy the requirement, rendering uncertainty.