Doctrines Flashcards
Doctrine of Satisfaction
Lord Chichester v Coventry [1867]:
Lord Romily defined satisfaction: If X is under an obligation to Y and subsequently confers a benefit on Y, it is presumed that the benefit is intended to satisfy i.e. discharge the
obligation. Illustrates the maxim: ‘Equity imputes an intention to fulfil an obligation’
Doctrine of Satisfaction - Satisfaction: A debt may be ‘satisfied’ by a legacy
Talbot v Duke of Shrewsbury [1714]
- Debt may be satisfied by a legacy. If a debtor gives his creditor in his will a legacy as great or greater
than the debt owed, the legacy shall be deemed a satisfaction of the debt (Trevor MR).
Doctrine of Satisfaction - Satisfaction: A debt may be ‘satisfied’ by a legacy
The presumption of intention to satisfy the debt is rebutted where?
(1) The will contains a direction to discharge the testators’ debts: Re Manners [1949]
(2) The debt did not exist at the time of the making of the will: Cramer’s Case [1701]
(3) The amount of the debt was uncertain at the time of making of the will: Buckley v Buckley [1888]
(4) The amount of the legacy is less than the amount of the debt: Coates v Coates [1898]
Doctrine of Satisfaction - Satisfaction: A debt may be ‘satisfied’ by a legacy
Fitzgerald v National Bank [1929]
- However, here they held the doctrine still applied despite the fact the legacy didn’t include the interest on the debt. Satisfaction will not apply where the character of the legacy is different to the debt and where the will
stipulates the legacy be payable at a later date than the debt.
Doctrine of Satisfaction - A “Portion Debt” may be “satisfied” by a legacy
General rule and Delany’s explanation?
A portion debt is basically an undertaking by a parent to make a gift to his child which is (a) substantial having regard to the parent and child’s means and (b) intended to ‘establish the child in life’ (Taylor v Taylor [1875]).
S.63(9) Succession Act 1965 preserves this rule.
Delany (2007) explains the doctrine: Where a father or person in loco parentis to a child undertakes to make a gift of a substantial nature or incurs an obligation to do so and then makes provision in his will in the nature of a
portion for this child, the portion debt is deemed satisfied by the obligation in the will.
Doctrine of Satisfaction - A “Portion Debt” may be “satisfied” by a legacy
Re Battersby’s Estate [1887]:
In these circs a child has to choose bw the portion debt and the gift in the will
Doctrine of Satisfaction - A “Portion Debt” may be “satisfied” by a legacy
Hickey v O’Dwyer [2006]
- Laffoy J confirmed, unlike satisfaction of debts by legacies, the doctrine applies even if the amount og
the legacy is less than the amount/value of the portion debt.
Doctrine of Satisfaction - A Legacy may be “Satisfied” by a Portion
Re Pollock [1885]:
Lord Selborne: when a testator gives a legacy to a child or any person to whom he’s in loco parentis, and after makes a gift or enters into a binding contract in his lifetime in favour of the same legatee, then there’s a presumption that both gifts were made to fulfil the same natural or moral obligation of providing for the
legatee so the gift inter vivos is either wholly or partly a substitution for or an ademption of the legacy.
Doctrine of Satisfaction - A Legacy may be “Satisfied” by a Portion
Three points of note in this area?
(1) The presumption referred to by Lord Selborne is rebuttable by evidence of a contrary intention by testator
(2) The legacy must be in existence i.e. the will must’ve been made at the time at which the portion is paid:
Re Peacock Estate [1887]
(3) A legacy for a specific purpose must be adeemed by a subsequent inter vivos gift for the same purpose
Griffith v Bourke [1887]: Porter MR said where there’s a gift in a will for an expressed object and after a donation by the testator in his lifetime for the same object, the law presumes he did not intend that both gives
should take effect but that the latter should be in substitution for the former gift.
Doctrine of Satisfaction - A Legacy may be “Satisfied” by a Legacy
Garth v Meyrick [1779]:
If 2 or more legacies are given to the same person in the same instrument and are of the
same amount, the legatee may take one only.
The doctrine of satisfaction does not apply if the legacies are:
(a) Given by the same instrument but are for different amounts, or
(b) Given by different instruments.
Doctrine of Election
What is it?
Doctrine: Someone cannot take a benefit and reject an associated burden. It comes into operation where a testator purports to confer a benefit on a donee and in the same instrument purport to transfer some of the donee’s
property to a third party.
If the donee doesn’t wish to pass on his own property, he must take against the instrument and the gift intended
for him be used to compensate the third party who it was intended would receive the donee’s property.
Biehler: In practice, the application of the doctrine of election may lead to anomalous results. It is a mischievous doctrine that tends to defeat the testator’s real intentions and that it is being application in conditions that no longer correspond to those that may have justified its adoption in the first instance. The doctrine may only apply today where there’s a mistake on the testator’s part.
Doctrine of Conversion and Reconversion
What is it?
Equitable Conversion: Doctrine of the law of real property under which a purchaser of real property becomes the equitable owner of title to the property at the time he signs a contract binding him to buy the land at a later date.
The seller retains legal title of the property prior to the date of conveyance, but this land interest is considered personal property (a right to the payment of money, rather than a right to the property).
The risk of loss is then transferred to the buyer – if a house on the property burns down after the contract has been signed by before the deed is conveyed, the buyer till nevertheless have to pay the agreed-upon purchase price for the land unless the seller in possession or deemed in possession has failed to protect it.
