Today was a tripleheader of Equity, Public and Land Law. However, more important than all three, Tottenham played Real Madrid at the Santiago Bernabeu, so as an avid Spurs fan that has eaten up into my time to write this blog post.
In today’ tutorial for Equity and trusts, we continued to examine trusts and the purposes for today’s class we spent our day looking at discretionary trusts. What I took from the class (which is relevant to all the areas of law) is the importance of wording when describing what is happening in the trust, i.e. is this a trust or a power of appointment. While in writing them we care about the words, this might not have been the case for the settler, so we must also consider the importance of the meaning (or intent) of the settler. While the latter might not always be upheld, especially if the wording is loose, it should not just be disregarded. That is to say, the use of precatory words do not create trusts, but nor do they prevent trusts.
Then I had my lecture in public law. We have continued to look at the result of cases regarding common law to create retrospective laws, which seems to be fine ( the example of marital rape) but don’t seem okay when Parliament does so (the Burmah Oil example). I do not think that is a problem in a legal sense for Parliament to have retrospective laws, Parliament is sovereign. It can do what it wants. Putting on my political scientist hat for a few minutes; they won’t do whatever pleases them or suits them due to game theory. While Parliament as an institution can do whatever it wants, MPs cannot. They are bound to their electorate and baring a civil war, or a revolution will be at the will of the people (precisely not what the Daily Mail refers to, I jest). Also, Parliament has to deal with foreign governments, and if they wish to conduct business with them over time (repetitive game), then they have little interest to defect to changing what they agreed to in the past (bit more commentary on Brexit: Britain will give money to the EU decades after leaving (it’s the pensions that have already been agreed. Don’t like it? Tough, we decided to it and if we want to prove to others that we are going to keep our word when coming to future trade deals. No project fear, just bleeding reality).
Gone slightly off topic…
Finally, we had our first tutorial in land law. I must say that the change in preparations really paid off. While I did not contribute to the class, I was able to stay on top of what everyone saying and understand points being raised. And as always, Land Law is about being anal, though not seemingly in the case eofManchester Aiport Plc v Dutton. While I would like to go on. I have far surpassed my word limit if you want to know more, just shoot me a message.
PS. Hugo Lloris, what a man!
