Law of trusts Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Law of consecrates - Case Study ExampleThe children being the minors are non entitled to be solidly or liquidly be micturaten any cash it should only be kept for them or invested for their behalf. so Teresa is not entitled to pay them any income except invest or save it for their benefit after meeting their necessary requirements. Teresa is entitled to invest the currency for the beneficiaries for as practic all toldy as she can but not check them hard cash because of their age. In the law of candor and Trust, any legal guardian is entitled to make decision on investment of the beneficiaries. Therefore Teresa should not give them cash as it will spoil them.Further dislike of the children by Teresa does not entitle her not to give or provide for them what should be provided. Her personal hatred towards the children should not be driven towards the fund. unless if Teresa finds that her dislike to the children is affecting the trust, then she can apply to the court for requiti ng her post as a trustee and the court shall appoint a trustee to run the fund. Therefore, the two boys claim is justified as farseeing as they do not solicit for the income realized from these investments to be paid to them directly. Teresa as a trustee should not also invest the money for the boys where she has interest.b) capital of Texass dropping out of school where he was studying touristry studies at the University of Scunthorpe does not entitle him to be given the money to start his own business by being 200,000 as down payment of 10% on the grease ones palms of the hotel. This is against the law of equity since all the investments done must be for the benefit of the two children. Therefore, Teresa should not give out the money to capital of Texas simply because, he (Austin) is a minor and in any case the money is held in trust for their benefits and not his own benefit. Any investment done or any purchase of the two children him (Austin) and Morris. In reality the age o f maturity i.e. 25 years. Then he can be given the verbalize money to start his business as he requires but before that, Teresa should not be swayed or pressed to give any money to Austin as this is against the rule of equality, where all the investment on property or otherwise must be for the benefit of both children and not Austin himself. Therefore Austin must not be given the said money as he is a minor and the Trust is not for his own benefit, it is held on the behalf of the two children and strictly for the provision of necessaries like food, accommodation, training and thereafter any amount extra can be invested in other investments for the benefit of them (Austin and mums). Austin mighty argues that since he has dropped out of University, his part of fees can form part of 200,000 for the purchase of the Hotel, this should not be entertained since no one had forced him out of school. He dropped out of University in his own will. He is free to go back and continue with his s tudies and his fees will be paid. However, if Austin has entered into agreement with the management of the Hotel to purchase the hotel, Teresa as a trustee can write a letter to the hotel and explain to them why she cannot give Austin the money to pay as part of payment in the purchase of the Hotel. This is because all the money is held