Due to the promblematic situation of statehood
The state soveregnty of this will presume thus in order for validity such atrocias vehicle will be displayedProperty which is intended to construct a trust fund must be segregated from all other property, in order for its identity to be sufficiently certain. If this is not succeeded then the result will be found to have no certainty of subject matter and in turn the trust will fail. As found in the case Re London Wine Co. where the creditors of a wine company sought to claim that their proprietary rights in a number of bottles of wine held in the company's cellar. They argued that their rights should be granted due to their contracts for the purchase of said wine. Oliver J held that the proprietary claims would only be successful if the bottles of wine were held in trust for the creditors. In order for this to occur, the bottles of wine must be identifiable from each other. However, as the wine had not been segregated from each other they were found to be unidentifiable and thus the claim failed as no trust was found. Here Oliver J was acknowledging that the property rights must be attached to some property in order for a trust to succeed and this approach is commonly referred to as ‘the orthodox approach'. The principle that property must be separately identified before it can be held on a valid trust has been affirmed many times and no more conclusively then in the case Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd. Goldcorp Exchange Ltd was a bullion exchange company that went into insolvency. At the time of the company's decline many purchasers of gold bullion had paid but had not taken delivery of the goods and thus were kept in the company's vault. The claimants, as a result of their contracts, were seeking to demonstrate that the bullion was held on trust for them. The claimants which had bullion that had been segregated from the bulk of the other bullion in the vault were found to have their property identifiable and these claimants were successful. However any of the claimants which did not have their bullion segregated from the bulk were not able to identify a particular stock of bullion in the vaults and thus could not show which bullions were held in trust for them and were unsuccessful in their claim. The case of Re Goldcorp also shows that this principle rule must not only be logistically possible to identify the property, but the property itself has to actually be segregated for the function of administering it to a trust arrangement. This is shown by the dealings of their client Mr Leggatt. Mr Leggatt placed an order with the company for a rare form of coin which the exchange would not normally hold. The exchange accepted the deal and held these coins for Mr Leggatt. Therefore, in the exchange's vault there were a large number of coins which could easily be identified as being Mr Leggatt's. However, Mr Leggatt's claim failed because in the vault his coins were mixed in together with coins the exchange ordinarily holds, thus highlighting the rigid nature of such a rule. It can be seen that there is a distinction between tangible and intangible property when applying this rule. Tangible property is property which has physical existence, such as real estate or chattels, as regards to, intangible property which is property that does not have a physical existence such as a debt or share holding. Both of which, however, are capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms. There is no reason as to why the orthodox approach should not be applied in the same way in both tangible and intangible property. In a number of cases this approach has been applied in the same way for intangible property with MacJordan Construction v Brookmount being the leading example. Here, a claim arose as to a trust over a bank account. A building contract provided that the employer would retain a certain percentage of the contract price as trustee for the builder. On the employers bankruptcy the claimant...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document