Justification in hunter v moss 1 fungibility one of the criticisms directed towards hunter is that of the distinction made between chattel and fungibles7 in hunter, the defendant employer declared himself a trustee of 5% out of his 950 shares in favour of the plaintiff employee. Critically analyse the above statement with reference to the decisions in hunter v moss  1 wlr 452, re goldcorp exchange ltd (in receivership)  1 ac 74 and re london wine co shippers  pcc 121. The defendant challenged the finding that an oral express trust applied to 50 of his 950 shares on the basis there was not certainty of subject matter the trust related to five per cent of a company's issued share capital. Academiaedu is a place to share and follow research. When unmarried couples jointly own their property but do not agree upon the size of each party's share then an almighty legal tangle can ensue this was the problem confronting mr kernott and ms jones whose case was decided, after 4 years of litigation, by the supreme court on wednesday 9 november 2011.
10 following hunter v moss  1 wlr 452 2 the australian shares (under australian law11) the case is plainly a difficult one. Correct way to distinguish hunter v moss (intangible property) & re london wine (tangible property - chattels) if trust property uncertain: purported trust fails & as settlor not disposed of property remains in his beneficial ownership. Criticism came from theresa villiers who said the flexibility provided by hunter v moss may yet to prove to have deleterious (detrimental) effects she goes on to say it provides further uncertainty and does not reflect the settlor's wishes. If you havent already done so, please subscribe thanks (all rights go to the national football league & all its broadcasters i do not own any of the music and the footage used in this video.
Literary criticism i feminist criticism theory in the novel harry potter by j k rowling introduction according to peter barry's book, feminism was born. Hunter v moss was also followed by the hong kong court of first instance in re c a pacific finance ltd 13 in academic circles, neuberger j's distinction has attracted some criticism 14 it has. The structure of the book is slightly unusual in that after an introductory chapter, and a chapter on basic concepts and principles, chapter 3 covers the three certainties but is followed by purpose trusts in chapter 4, and charitable trusts in chapter 5, before continuing with formalities in chapter 6 and constitution in chapter 7. Hunter v moss - hunter v moss 1 wlr452 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, hunter brought a claim against moss for them, arguing that mosss promise had created a trust over.
The following books are not substitutes for a textbook, nor do they consist of concentrated revision notes they attempt to give you a greater understanding by explaining the law through its background and function. Rider 3-01 in australia, a decision of the supreme court of new south wales in white v shortall1 explicitly rejected the approach taken by dillon lj in hunter v moss. Hunting hitler, however, proceeds to trivialize the topic by treating it like any other reality show - tnt's cold justice, only with the mother of all 70-year-old cold cases, one. Hunter v moss had been argued and decided before the decision had been given in re goldcorp exchange ltd it has therefore been submitted to criticism on the grounds. Others abide our question thou art free we ask and ask: thou smilest and art still, out-topping knowledge for the loftiest hill : that to the stars uncrowns his majesty.
Question: explore the effect of hunter v moss on certainty of subject matter answer: the case of hunter v moss 1994 relates to the requirement of certainty of subject matter within creation trusts. What duties no definite answer defining the property to be held re london wine from school of l100 at university of bedfordshire. It could be argued that the case law prior to hunter v moss appeared to portray a strict approach of finding the certainty of subject matter but the decision of recognizing the indistinguishable nature suggests that the courts are more prepared to find the certainty of subject matter once the certainty of intention was established. (iii) criticisms critics of hunter v moss obviously do not claim that there is any difference between one pound and another pound or one ordinary share in m co and another rather, they point to the difficulties which could arise on subsequent dealings with the shareholding or bank account of which an unsegregated part is subject to a trust.
Despite hunter v moss being followed in re harvard securities , hayton questioned whether dillon j's argument that there is no difference between a testator giving 50 shares to a legatee in his will and a settlor declaring himself trustee of 50 of his shares is correct and whether there is a broad and convincing distinction between trust of. So the criticism of hunter v moss is misconceived in the sense that 'identifying the specific shares held on trust' is entirely meaningless, there never were any 'specific shares'. Criticism of hunter v moss effectively ignores both these important principles as set out by professor goode: see, eg the criticisms in underhill & hayton (17 th edn, 2006) at 818-821 the latest edition of underhill & hayton (18 th edn, 2010) somewhat confusingly continues to criticize hunter v moss but also cites with approval professor. An la private detective is framed for the death of his lover who is also the wife of an district attorney this video uses copyrighted material in a manner t.