Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Tracing Proprietary Claims on Sham Trusts under Common Law and Equity Law. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 11 page paper looks at the way tracing can take place in proprietary claims on a sham trust, comparing and contrasting the differences of claims made under common law and equity law, the impact this has on the use of tracing as a remedy and considers the argument that tracing should be seen as a process rather than a remedy with only a single set of rules for beneficiaries. The paper is written with reference to English Law. The bibliography cites 15 sources.
Page Count:
11 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TEshamtrace.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
that the basis of the claim is that there is a sham trust. Under these circumstances the basic claim is that the assts of the trust are not held for
the named beneficiaries, or those who it is possible to identify when applying the terms of the trust instrument, but instead are being held by the third party that is
making the propriety claim (Cormack, 2000). Tracing is the tool that will be used, although usually seen as a remedy; it may also be argued it is a process that
will lead to a potential remedy. Tracing and following has been defined by Lord Millett in case of Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102 as " following
is a process of following the same as it as it moves from hand to hand. Tracing is a process of identifying you as it is a substitute for the
old" (Lexis, 2008). Tracing can take place under common law and equity. Under common law it is established with the case of Taylor v Plumer (1815) 3 M & 562
that trust property may be traced as long as it can still be identified and has not been mixed with other funds, this is an approach which is particularly applicable
to chattels which are easier to identify as specific items (Martin and Turner, 2006). In this case Thomas Plumer gave Walsh a sum of money to invest for
him, Walsh was his stockbroker (Martin and Turner, 2006). The instruction from Plumer were to invest in Exchequer Bonds, but instead he invested in American bonds and bullying. Walsh went
bankrupt, and Taylor was his trustee in bankruptcy (Martin and Turner, 2006). The case concerned the ownership of the American bonds and the bullion which was disputed, it was
...