Penner, J; (2010) Resulting trusts and unjust enrichment: three controversies. In: Mitchell,, (ed.) Constructive and Resulting Trusts. (? - ?). Hart Pub
Full text not available from this repository.
It is controversial what needs to be proved in order to benefit from the presumption of resulting trusts, whether all resulting trusts arise by operation of law, and whether resulting trusts are restitutionary or not. The author shows that a claimant need not prove an absence of consideration before benefitting from the presumption, and argues that, whilst presumed resulting trusts respond to intention, they arise by operation of law. Finally, the author argues that one argument for a restitutionary analysis of resulting trusts, i.e. that a transferor cannot retain a beneficial interest in property title to which he has transferred, is misconceived.
|Title:||Resulting trusts and unjust enrichment: three controversies|
|Keywords:||Law, philosophy of property, unjust enrichment, property, restitution, tracing, unjust enrichment|
|UCL classification:||UCL > School of Arts and Social Sciences > Faculty of Laws|
Archive Staff Only: edit this record