concerned about preference in insolvency cases states that if you intend to

Concerned about preference in insolvency cases states

This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 8 pages.

concerned about p[reference in insolvency cases - states that if you intend to transfer money under a contract that is the end of the matter - no room for a PRT - W gave money to I under contract which later turned out to be void BUT no PRT because there was a clear intention explaining the transfer of legal/beneficial title to the money - no reason to examine the presumptions.- Chase Manhattan Bank N.A. v. Israel-British Bank(London) Ltd.(1985)- CM made same payment to I twice and then I became insolvent - CM had personal claim against I which was worthless because I was insolvent - CM argued that because the contract under which the money p[aid was void for mistake the intention was vitiated = transfer with no intention underlying it = allows a PRT to operate - held to be a resulting trust in favour of CM.(b) Contribution to the Purchase Price- General Principle- Covers situation where B purchases something with the money of A, or of A and B - property is presumed to be held on trust by B for A and B in proportion to their respective financial contributions BUT the presumptioncan be rebutted by evidence of an inconsistent intention such as to loan or gift the money.- The Venture[1908]- Yacht purchased for £1050 - £550 of S's money used for the purchase - no evidence as to why his money was used - held that S had a share in the beneficial ownership of the yacht under a PRT.- Farwell LJ- When it is once proved that Percy Stone advanced 550l. of the 1050l. purchase-money for this yacht he thereupon became entitled to fifty-five 105ths. That being the presumption, it was, of course, open to the other side to displace that presumption, but it was not incumbent upon Percy Stone to prove more than that. It was for the other side to displace that presumption if they could, but they offered no evidence at all. - Financial Contribution- The contribution to the purchase price must be financial, i.e. the types of non-financial contribution that may be taken into account for Stack v Dowden or Jones v Kernott(Land Law) do not suffice. 3
Image of page 3
- Financial contribution to purchase of an asset without explanation can lead to a PRT BUT does this apply to all types of contribution?- Carlton v Goodman[2002]- Person named on mortgage but never intends to pay any of the mortgage repayments - was this a sufficient contribution to the purchase price to justify a resulting trust = NO.- Mummery LJ- Not a valid contribution to purchase price which entitled A to a continuing equitable interest in the property - role played by A was different/lesser to that of a contributor to the purchase price - A had merely facilitated the purchase of the house by lending name to document to secure the loan for building society - A's involvement in the purchase was so circumscribed/temporary that it could not fairly be described as a contribution to the purchase price entitling A to an equitable interest in the property.- Curley v Parkes[2004] Court of Appeal- Confirmed that later contributions to the property, other than to the purchase price, was not sufficient - focus on what contributes to the purchase price at the time of purchase.- Gibson LJ
Image of page 4
Image of page 5

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 8 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Wills and trusts, Trust law, Primary Trust

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture