Great video :) I find your channel really helpful. I'm struggling quite a lot with Trusts at the moment and was wondering if you could so a video of tracing and stranger liability as well ? Thanks of your help !
Very helpful as always, always watch your videos first to help me understand the gist before I hit the books! Don't know how I'd be getting through this degree without these videos haha!
Nice one Marcus. Strong v Bird was not without its own imperfections, particularly as seen in Re James 1935 2 CH 251. I am curious Strong v Bird is considered the locus classicus considering its ad hoc devolvement . It feels as though Lord Jessel MR had to scramble together elements to enable equity redeem its moral conscience against the common law. Personally I would disagree with the rule in Strong v Bird in favour of the plaintiff residuary legatees who rightfully argued the burden of a debt on the estate.
Anyone familiar with Joseph Jaconelli and his 2006 journal article 'The Problem in the Rule in Strong v Bird' ? I cannot source it online via my subscribed legal databases at college (which are limited FYI). I would love to understand his main contention in the rule as i think Strong v Bird is as Marcus says 'quite a fudge rule'. I have little documented evidence to support my own disapproval of the rule. Any tips??? Christmas exams looming.
@@marcuscleaver Don't ever think we don't appreciate you. Your channel is incredibly helpful. Plus you introduced me to Jane Austin novels. ;) Thanks again . X
Thank you for this wonderfully concise and clear explanation Marcus! I've been trying to do some wider reading on the principle that 'equity will not assist a volunteer' for my tutorials, and I was wondering what some of your thoughts are on potential reforms or changes to this idea. Is it arguably sufficient in performing its duties as an equitable remedy due to the exceptions listed, or do you think it needs major reforms?
If the trust is being held until the beneficiary is 18, is it still an immediate gift under Re Rose considering that it meets the requirements of knight v knight ? And the settlor sent the Stock form but did not sign it.
Tbh Ffion, common law tracing is so restricted now that it barely merits a mention. Most people tend to agree it is essentially folded into equitable tracing at this point.
OK that's no problem, I get what you mean. Unfortunatley it's still a regular question in my exams to evaluate the two together annoyingly! Thanks for getting back to me though really appreciated x
Hey there Marcus, great video as always! Just curious, are these remedies able to perfect a gift which fails for lack of statutory formalities, or only for improper constitution?
Thank you for the video. It's honestly what made me pass my second year of University. So I can't thank you enough. Also, I was wondering if you could do some videos on commercial law?. It would really be a massive help as I hope to go into that field after my studdies. Thank you.
The principle in Strong V Bird doesn’t seem reasonable from the civil law system. While the debtor is appointed executor, he cannot use himself, but the other interested party such as beneficiary could have the standing to sue the executor for that debt to be paid to the estate. Is it logic and reasonable?
hey Marcus, it would be appreciated if you could elaborate more in Strong V Bird? Whats being an executor got to do with paying his debt to his deceased step mother? His step mother had died, shouldn't he be free of the debt then ? I dont understand the relation of being an executor and the debt.
+Amira Zain yeah it's a bit mad. Technically he's still in debt to the estate but because he was the executor he would have had to sue himself which the courts definitely do not like!
That's a good question Amira. At common law Bird was released of the debt as the agreement with stepmother was oral not written. Thus Bird was a volunteer. ( ie no consideration exchanged for the gift of debt release). As we know Equity will not assist a volunteer. However Bird argued the intention of the deceased stepmother had been manifested in her 4 year forgiveness of the debt when she returned to paying her usual quarterly rent of £202 and 10s after 2 quarters. Leaving an unpaid debt of £900 from the £1100 borrowed from her by Bird. Lord Jessel held her actions was evidence of debt forgiveness and appointing Bird executor to her estate constituted the perfection of what appeared an imperfect gift (in the eyes of the beneficiaries not familiar with the oral arrangement). Bird as executor would have to prove the burden of debt on the estate but one cannot sue oneself. The rule in Strong v Bird is the result of an unprecedented dilemma. Lord Jessel had to look at both equities (ie the plaintiff legatees and the respondent Bird). Bird had stronger proof in the actions of the deceased than the plaintiffs had to dispel his debt owing. Re Stewart 1897 expands the rule to include the imperfect gift notion . Consider the restraints of Pinnels Case (1602) from Contract law to help you understand the dilemma facing the courts in Strong v Bird (1874).
Your explanations were so good that i listened to it over and over. I am your fan, i now understand the lecture. Thank you do much.
This was really helpful! Thank you very much Marcus
Great video :) I find your channel really helpful. I'm struggling quite a lot with Trusts at the moment and was wondering if you could so a video of tracing and stranger liability as well ? Thanks of your help !
Thank you Marcus! Your videos are really helping me better understand this module
Glad to help!
Very helpful as always, always watch your videos first to help me understand the gist before I hit the books! Don't know how I'd be getting through this degree without these videos haha!
Nice one Marcus.
Strong v Bird was not without its own imperfections, particularly as seen in Re James 1935 2 CH 251.
I am curious Strong v Bird is considered the locus classicus considering its ad hoc devolvement .
It feels as though Lord Jessel MR had to scramble together elements to enable equity redeem its moral conscience against the common law.
Personally I would disagree with the rule in Strong v Bird in favour of the plaintiff residuary legatees who rightfully argued the burden of a debt on the estate.
I am looking for Milroy v Lord [1862] case does anyone have this?
Anyone familiar with Joseph Jaconelli and his 2006 journal article 'The Problem in the Rule in Strong v Bird' ? I cannot source it online via my subscribed legal databases at college (which are limited FYI). I would love to understand his main contention in the rule as i think Strong v Bird is as Marcus says 'quite a fudge rule'. I have little documented evidence to support my own disapproval of the rule. Any tips??? Christmas exams looming.
drive.google.com/file/d/1UQCsXdAP8bvijK884fxLLNYAYCT4l1v2/view?usp=sharing
@@marcuscleaver you see this is why I love you.
Thank you so very much.
I really appreciate this. Tadhg.
Never say I don't read the comments ;)
@@marcuscleaver Don't ever think we don't appreciate you. Your channel is incredibly helpful. Plus you introduced me to Jane Austin novels. ;) Thanks again . X
Thank you for this wonderfully concise and clear explanation Marcus!
I've been trying to do some wider reading on the principle that 'equity will not assist a volunteer' for my tutorials, and I was wondering what some of your thoughts are on potential reforms or changes to this idea. Is it arguably sufficient in performing its duties as an equitable remedy due to the exceptions listed, or do you think it needs major reforms?
Perfect explanation
May I ask what is the Common Intention Constructive Trust? How can we prevent and gathering all the evidence?
If the trust is being held until the beneficiary is 18, is it still an immediate gift under Re Rose considering that it meets the requirements of knight v knight ? And the settlor sent the Stock form but did not sign it.
Hi Marcus, I was wondering you could do a short video on tracing in equity and common law? Thank you. I'd really appreciate it. X
Try out the video on breach of trusts. Tracing is covered within that! th-cam.com/video/fzG4PDvlDwo/w-d-xo.html
@@marcuscleaver thank you! I did spot that but am I right in thinking that just covers equitable tracing? X
Tbh Ffion, common law tracing is so restricted now that it barely merits a mention. Most people tend to agree it is essentially folded into equitable tracing at this point.
OK that's no problem, I get what you mean. Unfortunatley it's still a regular question in my exams to evaluate the two together annoyingly! Thanks for getting back to me though really appreciated x
Hey there Marcus, great video as always! Just curious, are these remedies able to perfect a gift which fails for lack of statutory formalities, or only for improper constitution?
so so so helpful tq Marcus, u absolute G
Thank you Marcus! Great video (and great last name)
Haha likewise!! ;D
Did you guys get married eventually 👀
Just wondering does anyone know where the share transfer formalities are derived from. Perhaps a statute?
Stock Transfer Act 1963
Thank you for the video. It's honestly what made me pass my second year of University. So I can't thank you enough. Also, I was wondering if you could do some videos on commercial law?. It would really be a massive help as I hope to go into that field after my studdies. Thank you.
Coming up later this year. Writing the notes on transfer of property as I type!
The principle in Strong V Bird doesn’t seem reasonable from the civil law system. While the debtor is appointed executor, he cannot use himself, but the other interested party such as beneficiary could have the standing to sue the executor for that debt to be paid to the estate. Is it logic and reasonable?
The debt is a liability on the estate at this point.
Why do we use the word "Re"?
hey Marcus, it would be appreciated if you could elaborate more in Strong V Bird? Whats being an executor got to do with paying his debt to his deceased step mother? His step mother had died, shouldn't he be free of the debt then ? I dont understand the relation of being an executor and the debt.
+Amira Zain yeah it's a bit mad. Technically he's still in debt to the estate but because he was the executor he would have had to sue himself which the courts definitely do not like!
That's a good question Amira. At common law Bird was released of the debt as the agreement with stepmother was oral not written. Thus Bird was a volunteer. ( ie no consideration exchanged for the gift of debt release). As we know Equity will not assist a volunteer. However Bird argued the intention of the deceased stepmother had been manifested in her 4 year forgiveness of the debt when she returned to paying her usual quarterly rent of £202 and 10s after 2 quarters. Leaving an unpaid debt of £900 from the £1100 borrowed from her by Bird.
Lord Jessel held her actions was evidence of debt forgiveness and appointing Bird executor to her estate constituted the perfection of what appeared an imperfect gift (in the eyes of the beneficiaries not familiar with the oral arrangement).
Bird as executor would have to prove the burden of debt on the estate but one cannot sue oneself.
The rule in Strong v Bird is the result of an unprecedented dilemma. Lord Jessel had to look at both equities (ie the plaintiff legatees and the respondent Bird).
Bird had stronger proof in the actions of the deceased than the plaintiffs had to dispel his debt owing.
Re Stewart 1897 expands the rule to include the imperfect gift notion .
Consider the restraints of Pinnels Case (1602) from Contract law to help you understand the dilemma facing the courts in Strong v Bird (1874).