Abstract
AbstractRejecting the competing positions of Swadling and Chambers, this article argues that the law of presumed resulting trusts reflects a very old rule that, upon a voluntary transfer, the fate of the beneficial interest in the property depends on the intention of the transferor. The case law shows that the presumption is of an intention to create a trust for the transferor or provider of the purchase money. It makes no difference if, reflecting the historically important concept of “retention”, this is phrased in negative terms as a presumption that the intention of the transferor was not to pass the beneficial interest to the transferee.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference9 articles.
1. Resulting Trusts and Voluntary Conveyances of Land, 1674–1925;Mee;32 Journal of Legal History 215; Lloyd v Spillet (1740),2011
2. Section 199 of the Equality Act 2010: How Not to Abolish the Presumption of Advancement
3. Resulting Trusts,Sine Causaand the Structure of Proprietary Restitution
4. Is There a Presumption of Advancement?;Glister;Sydney Law Review,2011
5. Equity and the Doctrine of Consideration;Ryan;Adelaide Law Review,1964
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献