Property Law - CT Rationales

Question 1

Who categorises CTs through taxonomy - event and response?

Answer 1

Birks

Question 2

Four types of events which might trigger CT?

Answer 2

Wrong, tracing, unjust enrichment and agreement-based

Question 3

Example of UE being considered to trigger CT?

Answer 3

Chase v Manhattan Bank

Question 4

Why are family homes not included in agreement-based event triggering CT?

Answer 4

Can be imputed intent, so no real intent

Question 5

Who argues Chase v Manhattan was an RT case?

Answer 5

Chambers

Question 6

Who finds the event triggering CT is intent to dispose of property + reliance on intent?

Answer 6

Chambers

Question 7

Event triggering PE

Answer 7

Detrimental reliance which need not have anything to do with acquisition

Question 8

Remedy for PE

Answer 8

Minimum equity to do justice

Question 9

How does the remedy for PE differ from CT?

Answer 9

CT held to promise, as opposed to minimum equity to do justice

Question 10

four rationales for CT

Answer 10

Fraud, disapplication thesis, loss and advantage

Question 11

First case of MW reported

Answer 11

Dufour v Pereira

Question 12

What suggests in Dufour v Pereira that fraud underlies CT?

Answer 12

‘B is seduced by the fraud of A’

Question 13

What suggests in R v B that fraud underlies CT?

Answer 13

LJ Lindley refers to SoF not preventing proof of fraud

Question 14

What suggests in P v M case law that fraud underlies CT?

Answer 14

Three words in all - ‘fraud’, ‘inequitable’ and ‘unconscionable’

Question 15

What two academics dispute fraud as being the underlying basis for CTs?

Answer 15

Liew and Rickett

Question 16

What is Liew’s conclusion about fraud and CTs?

Answer 16

Fraud describes state of affairs CT prevents ONLY - not a causative event

Question 17

Who argues fraud describes a state of affairs ONLY - not a causative event?

Answer 17

Liew

Question 18

Who argued unconscionabilit/fraud is a lazy way of explaining CTs?

Answer 18

Rickett

Question 19

Who highlights how we should not refer to fraud/unconscionability as underlying CT because non-specific and not required for coherence?

Answer 19

Rickett

Question 20

Academic on disapplication thesis

Answer 20

Swadling

Question 21

What rationale gives a new meaning of ET?

Answer 21

Disapplication thesis

Question 22

What rationale challenges p sovereignty?

Answer 22

Disapplication thesis

Question 23

Why does Liew challenge Swaddling’s thesis?

Answer 23

No ET on facts in R v B so not within formalities anyway

Question 24

Why does McFarlane challenge Swadling’s thesis?

Answer 24

If fraud is the concern, remedy through RT - no need to enforce promise

Question 25

What academic gives the loss rationale of CT?

Answer 25

Gardner

Question 26

Gardner rationale for CT

Answer 26

Loss

Question 27

What is the loss rationale for CT?

Answer 27

Correct detrimental reliance by binding B to promise

Question 28

Why is the loss rationale not likely?

Answer 28

No need for detriment and courts do not survey loss

Question 29

McFarlane on loss rationale?

Answer 29

Failure to explain why CT doesn’t always arise in PE, despite same drawer

Question 30

Advantage rationale of CT academic

Answer 30

McFarlane

Question 31

McFarlane CT rationale

Answer 31

Advantage

Question 32

What is the advantage rationale?

Answer 32

C received property subject to a condition, by which he received an advantage which holds him to his condition

Question 33

What case explains the advantage rationale - if ignorant, no CT because no condition

Answer 33

Chalmers v Chalmers

Question 34

What rationale explains why, in Neale v Willis, CT despite undertaking given to neither A nor C

Answer 34

Advantage

Question 35

Why does McFarlane not include MWs in advantage rationale?

Answer 35

B’s own property is involved

Question 36

How could MWs be included in advantage rationale?

Answer 36

Focus on Liew’s trust fund analysis

Question 37

What does Liew allow will fall outside of advantage rationale regardless of trust fund analysis in MW?

Answer 37

Re Dale

Question 38

Quistclose v Barclays general

Answer 38

Afloat through dividends, separate accounts

Question 39

Quistclose v Barclays judgment

Answer 39

Lord Wilberforce - only means primary purpose to pay then when impossible secondary RT

Question 40

What case tried to explain Quistclose v Barclays without breaching beneficiary principle?

Answer 40

Twinsectra v Yardley

Question 41

Twinsectra v Yardley general

Answer 41

Loan for land, solicitor undertaking

Question 42

Twinsectra v Yardley judgment

Answer 42

Lord Millett - RT for benefit of Q, with power to apply for intended purpose

Question 43

What case saw emphasis on the fact that there was no intent for money to be at free disposal of recipient?

Answer 43

Twinsectra v Yardley

Question 44

What did Lord Millett say in Twinsectra v Yardley to do with Chambers’ RT?

Answer 44

His analysis of Quistclose fits with negative intention theory of RT

Question 45

How did Lord Millett explain Quistclose extra-judicially?

Answer 45

ET

Question 46

How did Penner think it best to describe Quistclose?

Answer 46

ET positive intention to avoid judges imposing trusts ad hoc - need positive satisfaction parties intended a trust

Question 47

How does Liew think it best to describe Quistclose?

Answer 47

ET over RT, or CT if need formalities

Question 48

Who argued both R v B and Quistclose respond to same causative events, and have same response?

Answer 48

Liew