Trusts and Equity Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Trusts and Equity - Essay ExampleIn two oddballs, Chambers writes equity assumptions that the owner was not remembered to receive the gain ground of the property and raises a resulting effrontery in favour of the provider of that property. In Re Vandervells Trusts (No. 2), Megarry J. concluded that the resulting trust operated on different principles in each of these two situations. His lordship classified the resulting trust of an app atomic number 18nt gift as presumed and the resulting trust on the failure of an express trust as automatic. The presumed resulting trust was said to be based on the presumed intention of the provider of the property to create it and could be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. The automatic resulting trust arose independently of intention and was certain(p) 2.Resulting trusts arise by operation of law settled on by equity. That means trust is pendant on the decisions of equity particularly in conditions where property has been transferred to another and the provider of that property did not intend to benefit the recipient, equity responds by imposing a resulting trust. The distinction between express and resulting trusts is that the former are created by an intention to create a trust, whereas the latter arise because of a lack of intention to benefit the recipient 3. Geldart writes, Apart from Common Law and Statute Law, the most important department of our legal clay is Equity 4. That means the vitality of equity is apparent in English law system, thats why when the ground law and equity are used in legal sense, it does not concern about equity being an tantrum of law and order, all it means is two different kinds of law the Common Law on the adept side while the rules of Equity on the other. It is due to the rule that morally and legally binds to the decisions enforced by the courts.These two sets of rules imposed in the terms of law and equity, must not be looked upon as two align and independent systems. On t he contrary, the rules of Equity are only a sort of supplement or extension to the Common Law they assume its existence but they add something further. In this way Equity is an accession to the Common Law. Further, the rules of Equity, though they did not contradict the rules of Common Law, in effect and in practice puddle a result opposed to that which would have been produced if the Common Law rules had remained alone. A Common Law remunerate was practically, though not theoretically, nullified by the existence of a countervailing equitable right 5. Though since the tribunal Act came into force in 1875 the rules of Common Law and Equity are recognised and administered in the analogous court, yet they still remain distinct bodies of law, governed largely by different principles. In order to find the rights to which any given set of facts gives rise, we must always ask (i) what is the rule of Common Law (ii) What digression (if any) is made in the working of this rule by the existence of some rule of Equity applying to the case 6Like the Common Law, the rules of Equity are judicial law, i.e. to find them we must look in the first instances to the decisions of the judges who have administered Equity. But some branches