提防“有天赋的”特洛伊木马:分析公平格言——“公平不会完善不完美的礼物”

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
Edwin Teong Ying Keat
{"title":"提防“有天赋的”特洛伊木马:分析公平格言——“公平不会完善不完美的礼物”","authors":"Edwin Teong Ying Keat","doi":"10.1093/TANDT/TTAB053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article analyses and argues for the continued relevance of the maxim—Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift for three reasons. First, it is principally sound. Centuries of historical development should not be discarded due to its arbitrary application. Second, the deviations from the maxim were justified. The cases which were decided wrongly have subsequently been accounted for. Third, common law jurisdictions including Singapore, Malaysia and the United Kingdom still apply Milroy v Lord, as proven by empirical analysis. Last, this article proposes a new three-step test to prevent further arbitrary application: (i) As a starting point, Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. (ii) However, it may do so where the settlor has objectively done all he could to transfer legal title. (iii) If step (ii) conflicts with step (i), Equity looks to the substance, not the form, considering the facts of each case.","PeriodicalId":43396,"journal":{"name":"Trusts & Trustees","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beware the ‘gifted’ Trojan horse: analysing the equitable maxim—‘Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift’\",\"authors\":\"Edwin Teong Ying Keat\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/TANDT/TTAB053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article analyses and argues for the continued relevance of the maxim—Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift for three reasons. First, it is principally sound. Centuries of historical development should not be discarded due to its arbitrary application. Second, the deviations from the maxim were justified. The cases which were decided wrongly have subsequently been accounted for. Third, common law jurisdictions including Singapore, Malaysia and the United Kingdom still apply Milroy v Lord, as proven by empirical analysis. Last, this article proposes a new three-step test to prevent further arbitrary application: (i) As a starting point, Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. (ii) However, it may do so where the settlor has objectively done all he could to transfer legal title. (iii) If step (ii) conflicts with step (i), Equity looks to the substance, not the form, considering the facts of each case.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trusts & Trustees\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trusts & Trustees\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/TANDT/TTAB053\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trusts & Trustees","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/TANDT/TTAB053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文分析并论证了“公平不会完善不完美的礼物”这一格言的持续相关性,原因有三。首先,它基本上是合理的。几个世纪的历史发展不应该因为它的任意应用而被抛弃。其次,偏离这一准则是合理的。后来对判决错误的案件进行了解释。第三,实证分析证明,新加坡、马来西亚和英国等普通法司法管辖区仍适用Milroy v Lord案。最后,本文提出了一个新的三步检验,以防止进一步的任意应用:(1)作为起点,衡平法不会完善一个不完美的礼物。但是,如果调解人客观上已尽其所能转让法定所有权,则可以这样做。(iii)如果步骤(ii)与步骤(i)相冲突,衡平法在考虑每个案件的事实时,关注的是实质而不是形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beware the ‘gifted’ Trojan horse: analysing the equitable maxim—‘Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift’
This article analyses and argues for the continued relevance of the maxim—Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift for three reasons. First, it is principally sound. Centuries of historical development should not be discarded due to its arbitrary application. Second, the deviations from the maxim were justified. The cases which were decided wrongly have subsequently been accounted for. Third, common law jurisdictions including Singapore, Malaysia and the United Kingdom still apply Milroy v Lord, as proven by empirical analysis. Last, this article proposes a new three-step test to prevent further arbitrary application: (i) As a starting point, Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. (ii) However, it may do so where the settlor has objectively done all he could to transfer legal title. (iii) If step (ii) conflicts with step (i), Equity looks to the substance, not the form, considering the facts of each case.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
66.70%
发文量
92
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信