is or is not test allows the trustees to ensure that only qualified

Is or is not test allows the trustees to ensure that

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 7 pages.

is or is not ” test allows the trustees to ensure that only qualified beneficiaries take benefits, and so the trustees can distribute within the terms of the trust. Conversely, distribution to non-objects can be determined with certainty, and could be restrained by the court on the suit of any qualified member of the class; and (3) with respect to nonfeasance by the trustees; at the suit of any qualified member, recalcitrant trustees could be replaced, and this process could be repeated. “ The possibility that not only the original trustees but every set of trustees appointed in their place would fail or refuse to do this is so remote that it can for practical purposes be disregarded ”. Finally, it might be asked whether in a case such as “McPhail” , is now possible to say of the class that they can terminate the trust under the rule in “Saunders v. Vautier” . It is clearly impossible to exercise if the class of beneficiaries cannot combine together because it is unascertainable on the complete list test. IV.) Gifts Subject to a Condition Precedent: These are not trusts but gifts subject to conditions precedent in equity e.g. property will only be given to my son if he successfully obtains a 2:1 degree. A degree of conceptual uncertainty does not invalidate such a gift because a less strict test is applied here, as laid down in “Re Allen” , and that is that the gift is valid “ If it is possible to say that one or more persons qualify, even though there may be difficulty as to others ”. This test was considered in “Re Barlow’s WT” , where a testatrix directed her executor to allow any of her friends to buy paintings from her collection at below market price. This disposition was held sufficiently certain. Lord Browne-Wilkinson gave the definition of “ friends ”, though non-exhaustive, if a minimum of three requirements are met: (1) the relationship must have been a long-standing one; (2) the relationship must have been a social, as opposed to a business, relation; and (3) when circumstances permit they must have met frequently. Total ascertainment of friends was not required, any claimant need only to prove “ by any reasonable mean ” that he qualified. The rationale for such a less strict test was that in the case of individual gifts, unlike trusts and powers, uncertainty as to some beneficiaries did not affect the quantum of the gift
Image of page 4
Discretionary Trusts & Mere Powers 5 in respect of those who clearly qualified. Thus, courts are also liberal in determining criteria for vague terms. V.) Limitations on the Postulant Test: There are 3 limitations on Postulant Test: 1.) Symantec or Linguistic Uncertainty. 2.) Evidential Uncertainty. 3.) Administrative Unworkability. a.) Symantec/Linguistic/Conceptual Uncertainty: Where the term defining the objects of a trust is ambiguous the trust may fail for conceptual uncertainty, e.g. distribute my wealth to all my friends which are “ tall ”. Here, no clear meaning can be given to the
Image of page 5
Image of page 6

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture