Law of Trust and Equity

Law of Trust and Equity

Problem 1

The main purpose of equity is to fill the gaps and defficiencies present in the common law by finding resolutions to problems or cases that are difficult to be resolved by common law. Equity provides for solutions based on moral values of what is right and wrong and common law fails to do so. It is upto judge's discretion whether he wants to make use of equity principles in dealing with a legal issue or not. When we analyze the first problem in which the boyfriend simply tells his girlfriend about the lottery that he has won but hasn't but doesn't take any legal action or act that may prove that his lottery money belongs to the girl friend. According to Milroy v. Lord (1862) equity cannot be used to perfect and imperfect gift. It has been suggested by this case that “... in order to render a voluntary settlement valid and effectual, the settlor must have done everything ………………………comprised in the settlement, was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property (to the trustee) …... He may, of course, do this by actually transferring the property to the persons for whom he intends to provide, ……………. or declares that he himself holds it in trust for those purposes………one or other of these modes must be resorted to……. there is no equity in this court to perfect an imperfect gift.” The above mentioned description is enough to show that since there was no lawful arrangement between the girlfriend and boyfriend, she has no right to appeal for any part of the money. Equity can only play an important role in cases of proprietary estoppel as proved from the case of Dillwyn V Llewellyn (1862) which suggests that equity can be used to protect and safeguard the rights in case where there has been an element of encouragement and acquiescence. As proves by Inwards v Baker (1965) in which the father motivates and encourages his son to make and build a house on his very own land and promises him that he can have that land and bungalow (Gray & Gray, 2007, pp. 297). Unfortunately the father dies and was unable to transfer the rights of the land to the son through any type of legal actions. His heirs also claim for the land since the father was dead but the of court renders the right to the son who had built the bungalow since the son had build the bugalow and acted according to his fathers instruction. If he had not build the bungalow or left it in between then the court would not have give him the right. If we analyze the problem of Amanda and Brian it is quite clear that there was no involvement of encouragement in it or any legal relation of husband and wife which could transfer the rights to her. Equity is not applicable to this problem as common law is enough to deal ...