Equity and trusts

LXEC 2104

Why study equity

separately?

Historical reason
Different approach from common law
the ecclesiastical influence
Concepts of honour, duty, and moral
obligation

EQUITY

Equity is not a branch of the law,

It is a source of the law

Sources of English Law

Custom

Rules worked out by common laws and courts of

equity

Common law

Law merchant

Legislation

Historical Development

The origins of equity

The rigours of common law and
emergence of the Chancery court
Procedure in the Chancery court
The struggle between the Chancery and
Common Law Courts
Systematisation and procedural reforms

History

The Norman Conquest growth of

common
law Circuit judges
Common law courts (Curia Regis)- Kings bench, Common Pleas &
Exchequer
Common law courts fettered by
precedents

Emergence of Equity

Common law courts fettered by precedents did

not develop fast enough to do justice in all cases
Plfs often unable to obtain remedy
- strength of the dfd (eg.intimidation of the jury)
/vulnerability of the plf
Deficiency of the remedy
Failure to grant remedy
These were grounds for petition to the King in
Council to exercise his extrajudicial powers

The Court of Chancery

Began as the King in Council

Chancellor acted a King in Council
1474 Court of Chancery
established- independent of the King
and his Council
Chancellor designated keeper of the
Queens Conscience
Developed new rules and principles

Development and Systematisation

of Equity and Chancery Courts

Systematisation from 1735 onwardsChancery became highly organised

1813 appointment of Vice Chancelor
1841 powers of the Exchequer transferred
to the Chancery
1851 Court of Appeal of Chancery
Equity courts became a regular system of
courts with a recognised jurisdiction
Ridigity sets in Jessel MR: This court is not
a court of conscience but a court of law

New rules, new inventions

and modern equity

Trusts express, implied, resulting,

constructive

Equitable doctrines- eg equitable

estoppel/fiduciary obligation

Equitable remedies- specific performance /

injunctions

Procedural reforms

Disadvantages of separate courts

and the mischief that arose
No court had power to grant full
remedies
Resolved in Earl of Oxfords Case
Lord Cairns Act gave power to
award damages either instead of, or
in addition to, an injunction or
specific performance

Courts of Judicature Act 1873-75

Amalgmation of courts into one Supreme

Court of Judicature

Court of Appeal

replacing QB, CP, and Ch and Court of

Exchequer Chambers

The High Court of Justice three divisions

Effect of the Courts of

Judicature Acts 1873-75

Administration of law and equity

Every judge of every division to give to all
equitable rights, obligations and defences
Any variance between law and equity on the
same matter- rules of equity shall prevail.

Case examples:

Walsh v Lonsdale
Job v Job (1877)
Joseph v Lyons
Berry v Berry
Lowe v Dixon

Distinctive relationship between

common law courts and the courts of
chancery

Prof Maitland:
We ought not to think of common law and equity as
two rival systems. Equity was not a self sufficient
system, at every point it presupposed the
existence of common law. Common law was a self
sufficient system. I mean this: that if the legislature
had passed a short Act saying Equity is hereby
abolished, we might have got on fairly well; in
some respects our law would have been barbarous,
unjust, absurd, but still the great elementary rights,
the right of immunity form violence, the rights to
ones good name, the rights of ownership and
possession would have been decently protected
and contract would have been enforced.

Maitland Contd

On the other hand, had the legislature

said, Common law is hereby abolished,
this decree if obeyed would have meant
anarchy. At every point equity
presupposed the existence of common
law.

Equity a gloss on the common

law

Now equity is no part of the law, but a moral virtue

which qualifies, moderates, and reforms the rigour,
hardness, and edge of the law, and is an universal
truth; it does also assist the law where it is defective
and weak in the constitution (which is the life of the
law) and defends the law from crafty evasions,
delusions, and new subtleties, invented and contrived
to evade and delude the common law, whereby such
as have undoubted right are made remediless; and
this is the office of equity, to support and protect the
common law from shifts and crafty contrivances
against the justice of the law. Equity therefore does
not destroy the law, nor create it, but assist it.

Fusion between Equity and

Common Law?

The rules of equity remained distinct from

those at law but both administered in the
same courts.

Newbiggins Gas Co v Armstrong

(1879) 13 Ch D 310

Salt v Cooper

Fusion of law and

equity?

Ashburner:

The two streams of jurisdiction. Though they

run in the same channel, run side by side and
do not mingle their waters.

Cf Lord Diplocks statement in United Scientific

Holding Ltd v Burnley Borough Council [1978]
AC 904 (the two jurisdictional system have
surely mingled now. ) and its criticism

Two fundamental ideas

of the chancellors

Recognition of the sanctity of the

individual conscience and personal
obligation
Recognition of equity as
complementary and not a
contradiction of common law

-Express

THE TRUST

trusts

Implied trusts

Obligations of confidence
(Trust-key ingredient)

Personal Remedies

CONSCIENCE

Injunction, tracing, account

Specific performance

The fiduciary
relationship

Misrepresentation
Fraud

mistake

Undue influence

UNCONSCIONABILITY

Unconscionability

A basis for a range of doctrines

Patrick Parkinson:
Equitable intervention on behalf of a
plaintiff is frequently based upon the fact
that there is something in the conduct of
the defendant which makes it
uncoscionable for her or him to insist on
the preservation or enforcement of the
strict leagl rights arising under the law of
contract or the law of property.

Unconscionability

An emerging preoccupation of the

judiciary in the common law world

Per Anthony Mason, a universal

talisman in many fields of equity

Relevance of Equity to
contemporary issues

The ecclesiastical natural foundations of equity, its

concerns with standards of conscience, fairness
and equality and its protection of relationships of
trust and confidence, as well as its discretionary
approach to the grant of relief, stand in marked
contrast to the more rigid formulae applied by the
common law and equip it better to meet the needs
of the type of liberal democratic society which has
evolved in the twentieth century.
Sir Anthony Mason

Influence of equity

Intervention in the
administration of
common law
Penetrates aspects
of legal practice
Influences modern
commercial law
Environmental law

Administrative law
eg. Declaration &
injunction
Emerging role of
equitable principles
eg. In human rights
law restitution,
fiduciary role of
govts in relation to
indigenous peoples

RECEPTION OF ENGLISH PRINCIPLES

OF EQUITY IN MALAYSIA

Reception of English Common

Law and Equity

Significant dates
1807
1826
1937
1951
1956
1963

Reception of equity

We have as a matter of fact adopted

freely in these states a great mass of
English rule of law and equity either
directly or derivatively

Per Sproule J in the Re The Will of Yap Kim

Seng (1924) 4 FMSLR 313. Discuss this
statement with reference to other decided
cases.

Application of English
Principles of Equity

Motor Emporium v Arumugam [1933] MLJ

276

Warren v Tay Seng Geok [1965] 1 MLJ 44

Application of English Principles

of Equity

Civil Law Act 1956 s 3

Civil Law Act 1956 s 6 (no
application
of English land law principles)
But see National Land Code 1956 s
206 (3)

Case law on application of English

principles of Equity

Haji Abdul Rahman v Mohd Hassan (1915) 1

FMSLR 290 (PC)
The State of Johor v Salleh bin Hassan
(1939) 2 JLR 73
UMBC Bhd v Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Kota
Tinggi [1984] 2 MLJ 87
Baghwan Singh &Co Sdn Bhd v Hock Hin
Bros [1987] 1 MLJ 324
Oh Hiam v Tham Kong [1980] 2 MLJ 159,
164

Lian Keow Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) & Ano

v Overseas Credit Finance (M) Bhd [1988]
2 MLJ 449

[The Malaysian torrens system] does not prevent or

restrict the creation of beneficial interests in land by

way of express, implied or resulting trust arising by
operation of law in Malaysia by virtue of s 3 of the
CLA 1956. It does not abrogate the principles of
equity but alters the application of particular rules of
equity in so far as is necessary to achieve its special
objects. In this way, the court is entitled to exercise
jurisdiction in personam to insist upon proper conduct
in accordance with equitable principles and norms.

Alfred Templeton &ors v Low Yat

Holdings Sdn Bhd [1989] 2 MLJ
202, 222-223

S 206 (3) of the National Land Code

provides statutory authority for the liberal
application of equity whenever there is a
basis for that.

Application of English equitable

principles in the preservation of
property

Order 29 rule 2(1) of the Rules of the High Court 1980

Paragraph 6 to the Schedule to the Court of Judicature
Act 1964
Equivalent to [English] s 45(1) of the Supreme Court of
Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 or its predecessor s
25(8) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1973
See: Zainal Abidin bin Haji Abdul Rahman v Century
Hotel Sdn Bhd [1982] 1 MLJ 260

Section 45(1) SCJ (Consolidation)

Act
Beddow v Beddow (1878) 9 Ch D
89
Jessel MR:
That being so, it appears to me that the only limit to
my power of granting and injunction is whether I can
properly do so. For that is what it amounts to I
have unlimited power to grant and injunction in any
case where it would be right or just to do so; and
what is right and just must be decided, not by the
caprice of the judge, but according to sufficient legal
reasons or on settled principles.

History, Development and

Nature of Equity
1.Equity varies with the Chancellors foot.
Do you agree?

2.

Equity is often described as a gloss on

the common law. Explain.

3.

Equity does not destroy the law, nor

create it, but assist it. Analyse this

statement.

History, Development and Nature

of Equity

4. Discuss the importance of the Judicature

Acts in the development of law and equity.

5. There is only one court and equity rules

prevail in it . Per Jessel MR in Walsh v Lonsdale
(1882) 21 Ch D 9. Explain and illustrate this
statement.

QUESTIONS

It has been said that Equity is not

past child bearing. Do you agree?
Do the courts have an inherent
jurisdiction to do equity in
appropriate cases notwithstanding
sections 3 and 6 of the Civil Law Act
1956?
Given CLA sections 3 and 6 , how
have the courts exercised its
inherent jurisdiction to do justice?

Maxims of Equity

1. The maxims do not cover the whole of the

ground, they overlap, one maxim containing by
implication what belongs to another. Baker
and Langan, Snells Equity p 27. Discuss.

2. Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without

a remedy. Explain how other maxims
complement this maxim as they embody the
peculiar functions of equity.

3. Equity acts in personam. How does this

maxim extend the jurisdiction of equity?

Equitable Remedies
1.Equitable remedies are discretionary. Discuss with

reference to decided cases, the meaning and

application of this statement in relation to the remedy
of specific performance.

2. What are the various types of injunction? Explain

with reference to decided cases the principles and
factors that would guide the courts in the grant of:
a) perpetual injunction;
b) interlocutory injunction.
3. In what situations would it be obligatory for the courts
to grant an injunction?

Equitable remedies

In Personam personal remedies equity supplements

restricted range of remedies available at common law

Personal relate directly to the conduct or behaviour of

the parties

Personal and proprietary attach to property eg

constructive trusts and tracing

Discretionary - not according to the caprice of the

judge: According to established principles:

Only granted where damages are inadequate

Equitable remedies are

discretionary

Discretionary - not according to the caprice of

the judge: According to established principles
Only granted where damages are inadequate
Accommodates relative merits of the plf and dfds
eg. Equitable relief is refused where It would be unfair to the defnednt
Where it would cause undue hardship to the
defendant
Where plf comes to equity with clean hands
Where plf comes to equity with undeu delay
Where the relief would require constant
supervision

Specific Performance

An order of the court to a contracting party to

perform their obligations according to the contract

Established principles- breach of contract,

inadequacy of damages, discretionary

Contracts that may be performed

Contracts that cannot be performed

- Building contracts exceptions

Particular contracts
Contracts for sale of land ***
Building contracts
Contracts for sale of goods
Contracts to lend money
Contracts for personal services

Particular Contracts
Contracts for the sale of land sp generally
decreed see Specific Relief Act s 11
o
o

land is generally unique.

damages may not be a complete remedy for the
purchaser

Building contracts Generally not decreed

Exception(1) building work is sufficiently defined by the contract
(2) plf cannot be adequately compensated by damages
(3) defendant has obtained possession of the land

Defences to specific performance

Arising from the nature of the contract

Performance requires supervision
Insufficient definition of what is to be done
Want of mutuality eg. one party is an infant
Specific performance is futile
Dfd would have to do an act which he is
not competent to do
Performance is impossible

Defences to specific performance

Arising from the conduct of the parties

Undue hardship on the defendant
No willingness on the part of plf to
perform his part
Unconscionable conduct by the plf unclean hands?
Laches delay in instituting
proceedings?

Injunctions

Types of injunctions
- perpetual / interim or interlocutory
- prohibitory / mandatory
- quia timet injunction

Principles that guide that

court in the grant of
injunctions

Perpetual injunctions
- Day v Brownrigg
- Redland Bricks v Morris
- Gibb v Malaysia Building Society

Interlocutory injunctions
- American Cyanmid Co v Ethicon
- Keet Gerald Francis Noel v Mohd Noor

Mareva injunction and

Anton Pillar

Third Chandris Shipping Corpn v

Unimarine SA

Zainal Abidin v Century Hotel

Anton Piller KPG v Manufacturing

Processes

Doctrines of Equity

Equitable Interests in Property

Transfer of
property
Declaration of
trust
Direction of
trustee
See Wan Naimah

Borneo
Housing
Finance v Time
Engineering
Constructive trusts

Equitable
Assignmen
t/ Statutory
Assignmen
t

Equitable Interests/
Proprietary interests
May arise in various circumstances:
Express trusts
Beneficial interests in a deceased
estate
Under contract of sale bare trust
Implied trusts
Constructive trusts
Assignment of property

Assignment of Property

Statutory assignment under the Civil

Law Act 1956 section 4
Khaw Poh Chuan v Ng Gaik Peng
Harris Adacom Corporation v Perkom

Equitable Assignment
William Brandts & Sons v The Dunlop
Rubber Co
MIMB v Malaysia Airlines
Public Finance v Scotch Leasing Sdn Bhd

Estoppel
By deed
Common law
by judgement
by conduct
Estoppel
promissory estoppel
Equity
proprietary estoppel

Development of Estoppel
Estoppel by representation

Representation by or omission by A
Induced B to act

Caused detriment to B
Equity binds the conscience of the person
Promissory Estoppel

Applied to statements or promises about future conduct

Pre-existing relationship
Defensive equity- only as a shield as regards to the
other persons right
Representation of future conduct

Proprietory estoppel

Does not require pre-existing contractual relationship

Promises concerning land or property
Used as a sword

The new Estoppel

Unconscionability

Walton Stores (Interstate) Ltd v

Maher (1988) 164 CLR 394
Boustead Trading V AMMB
Chor Phaik Har V Choong Lye Hock

Promissory Estoppel
William Teos House and Estate Agencies v Chan Eng Swee
Where one party has by his words or conduct, made to the other
a promise or assurance which was intended to affect the legal
relations between them and to be acted on accordingly, then
once the other party has taken him at his word and acted on it,
the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be
allowed to revert to the previous legal relations as if no such
promise or assurance had been made by him, but he must
accept their legal relations subject to the qualifications that he
himself has so introduced even though it was not supported in
point of law by any consideration butt only by his word. The
principle does not create a cause of action where none existed
before. It only prevents a party form insisitng on his legal rights,
when it would be unjust to allow him to enforce them, having
regards to the dealings which have taken palce between them.

Proprietary estoppel

Crabb v Arun District Council

The basis of proprietary estoppel is the
interposition of equity. Equity comes in , true
to form, to mitigate the rigours of the strict
law.The early cases did not speak of it as
estoppel .
They spoke of it as raising an equity. it is
the first principle upon which all courts of
equity proceed.

Elements of Fiduciary Obligation

Fiduciary Obligation
Confidence
Scope for exercise
of discretion and
power
Bfy vulnerable

Trust
Dependence
Reliance
Disadvantaged
Vulnerability
One in position of influence
over another

One undertakes to act

in the interest of
another

Konsep Fidusiari
Pemecahan kewajipan?
Meletakkan amanah
konstruktif
Dasar:Unconscionability
Prevents unjust enrichment

Menimbulkan remedi
ekuiti
Injunksi
Tracing (Pengesahan)
Account (akaun)
Amanah Konstruktif

Fiduciary duty

Basis - Personal accountability

Prevent unconscionability

Prevents unjust enrichment

Gives rise to constructive trust

Application: eg. Mutual will

The Law of Trust

Definition of trust
Yong Nyee Fan v Kim Guan [1979] 1 MLJ 182

Trustee

Trust property

Beneficiary ( cestui que trust)

Settlor / testator

Trust Compared With

Other Concepts

Trust and debt*

Trust and contract

Trust and agency

Trust and bailment

Trust and power (of appointment)**

Classification of trusts

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Express / Implied/ Constructive

Private/ Public
Perfect/ Imperfect Obligation
Simple/ Special
Executed/ Executory
Completely and Inconstituted
Trust

Express trust
Express Trust

Declaration of trust

Intervivos trust
Transfer or property to
Trustee for the beneficiary
A trust which operates during
The life of the settlor

Requirements of an express trust

Knight v Knight: : 3 Certainties
Certainty of Word/Intention
Certainty of Subject
Certainty of Object
See :
Wan Naimah v Wan Mohd Nawawi [1974] 1 MLJ 41
Quah Eng Hock v Ang Hooi Kian [2005] 5 CLJ 126
Teoh Ah Bin v Tan Kheng Guan [2002] 3 MLJ 121
Yap Joyce v Tee Molly & Anor [2000] 3 MLJ 599

Failure of certainties

Lee Phek Choo v Ang Guan Yau

The paramount certainty is that of subject

matter in the first sense; if there is no
certainty as to the property to be held
upon trust, the entire transaction is
nugotary. Next, if that certainty is present
but there is no certainty of words, the
person entitled to the trust property holds
free from any trust. (cont..d)

Failure of certainties

Finally, if both these certainties are

present but there is uncertainty of objects,
there is a resulting trust for the settlor for
once established that a trust (of definite
property) was intended and the legatee
cannot take beneficially- the same applies
where there is uncertainty of the subject
matter as regards the beneficial interest,
unless one of the beneficiaries can
establish a claim to the whole.

COMPLETELY AND INCOMPLETELY

CONSITITUTED TRUST

Is the trust completely constituted?

NO
Has the trust been created by
transfer of property to trustee
Has the settlor done everything
that is necessary for him to do?

YES

Trust is enforceable by beneficiaries

?

YES

Completely Constituted Trust

Settlor has declared himself

or another as trustee

Settlor must have done

everything which is necessary
to be done to transfer the property

Transferor must do all those

Acts which are obligatory
for him to do

Transferor must use appropriate

mode of transfer according to the
nature of the property

Milroy v Lord (1862) 45 ER 1185

Koperasi Wanita Swak v Robert Sim [2005] 4 MLJ 493
Yeong Ah Chee v Lee Chong Hai [1994] 2 MLJ 614
Multipurpose holdings Sdn v General Holdings Sdn Bhd [2003] 2 MLJ

lease

Transfer by
assignment

Gift by cheque

Appropriate mode of
transfer according to the
nature of the property

chattels
shares
land

bank accounts
Open bank account and
Hand passbook to bfy

Cheque endorsed to
its beneficiary

delivery
delivery of duly executed
instrument of transfer
deliver a duly executed
instrument of transfer (IDT)

deed of conveyance

Trust is enforceable by
beneficiaries
Has the settlor done all in
his power to create the trust?

NO

Yes

Is it an agreement to create a trust?

Multi Purpose Holdings Sdn Bhd v

Anor v General Holdings Sdn
[2003] 2 MLJ 252

Is the agreement being

Enforced by volunteers?

Equity will not

imperfect gift
or
Equity will not
volunteer

perfect an
assist a

Equity will not assist a volunteer

exceptions

1. The Rule in
Strong v Bird
2. Gifts in contemplation
of death

3.

Estoppel

Rule in Strong v Bird

The rule in Strong v Bird

If

A expresses a present intention

to make a gift to B
and
That intention continues
unchanged until As death

and
B becomes the executor of As
will

then
B is entitled to hold property for his (Bs)
benefit

1. Personal property only

Gifts in contemplation of death

(Donationes Mortis Causa)

2. Must be in contemplation of
impending death
3. Must be intended to take
effect upon death

4. Must be delivery of property

ie Actual or symbolic token

Estoppel
An imperfect gift may be enforceable where 3
elements are present

Detriment suffered
by the representee

Representation by the
representor
Reliance on the
representation
by the representee

Express trust
Express trust

Trust Created By will

Types

Fully secret trust

Secret trust
Operation
Arises in a will but operates
Outside the will

No indication in the
will that X only holds
as trustee and not
beneficiary

Half secret trust

There is some indication in
the will that X holds as trustee
and not as beneficiary
Eg To X for the purpose I have
communicated

Elements of a Secret Trust

Intention of the testator that the
property be used according to
Specified purpose

Secret trust
Blackwell v Blackwell

Communication of intention to the

trustee

Acquiesence on behalf of
the trustee

Discretionary Trust
Beneficiaries do
not have a fixed entitlement

An expectation that the

Discretion will be excercised
In their favour

An equitable chose in action

Not disposable
intervivos or by will

assignable

Bfys interest is not property which

Is available to creditors
upon bankrputcy

Beneficiaries cannot call upon

the trustee to make a
distribution

Protective trust
Protective Trust
To A on protective trust
S 36 Trustee Act
Couples life interest
In a settlement with a
discretionary trust

Bankrputcy
Interest will determine on
the occurrence of specified event
Attempted alienation of property

Resulting Trusts
2 categories

1)Automatic resulting trusts

2)Presumed resulting trusts

Automatic resulting trust

Arises where the

settlor fails to
dispose of entire
beneficial interest in
property

conseq

The undisposed
beneficial interest
automatically
results to the
settlor

Automatic
Resulting trusts

Arises where the settlor

fails to dispose of entire
beneficial interest in
property

Failure of express trust

4 typical
situations

Failure to set out trust or

dispose of the whole
beneficial interest
Property conveyed
on trust for a
specific purpose
which fails
Undistributed surplus
of a fund

void

uncertainty

eg

perpetuity
Intended beneficiary
predeceases testator
Reasons for failure

unenforcable

Failure to create
express trust

illegality
eg

Incomplete constitution

Lack of formality

conseq
Trust property
automatically
results to the
settlor

Settlor retains what he

doesnt expressly give
away

Usually because
of an error in
drafting

Failure to set out

trust or dispose of
the whole
beneficial interest

conseq

Trustee holds undisposed

property on resulting trust
for settlor

Property conveyed on trust

for a specific purpose which
fails
consequence

Trust property
automatically results
to the settlor
eg

Quistclose trust

Barclays Bank v Quistclose

Trust property automatically

results to the settlor

conseq

EXCEPT

Where the funds were

provided with a clear
intention to part with
the property ie an out
& out gift

Undistributed
surplus of a fund

Where the rules of the contributor

fund dictate otherwise

Where the funds were

provided with an
overriding general
charitable intention

-no resulting trust

-property passes to
Crown

Bona vacantia
(ownerless
goods)

-no resulting trust

-monies are applied to
purposes which are as
near as possible to the
original purpose

Cy-pres
application

Presumed Resulting Trust

Where there is no express
intention to create a gift, there is a presumed intention
that the gift results back to settlor

Presumption against
a gift

By evidence of contrary intention

(words or conduct)
at the time of transaction
Consideration paid?

Express agreement?

REBUTTABLE

By presumption of
advancement

Presumption of Advancement

In loco parentis relationships

the law presumes the transferor
intends to benefit the tranferee by way
of gift
REBUTTABLE

Transfer from
husband to wife
Defacto partners?
Tinsley v Milligan
Damaratna v Damaratna

Transfer from
man to fiancee ?

By evidence that at the time of transfer

no gift was intended
Ponniah v Sivalingam
Neo Tai Kim v Foo Stie Wah
Sheppard v Cartwright

Transfer from
parent to child
Includes adoption

Presumed Resulting trust

2)Presumed resulting
trusts

Arises where title to

property is transferred
but the transferor does
not intend to dispose of
the beneficial interest

Voluntary transfer of As
property into Bs name and B
provides no consideration

eg

A purchases property in the

name of B

Property purchased by A, but

property is transferred into
A&Bs name (X=>A&B)

Purchase of property by
A&B and B makes a direct
financial contribution to
the purchase

Sabrina Loo Cheng Cheng

Suan v Eugene Khoo (1995)
1 MLJ

Can be legal or equitable,

real or personal

Property is deemed to be held in

shares proportionate to the
contributions of A&B

Matrimonial
property

Elements of Fiduciary
Obligation
Fiduciary Obligation
Confidence
Scope for exercise
of discretion and
power
Bfy vulnerable

Trust
Dependence
Reliance
Disadvantaged
Vulnerability
One in position of influence
over another

One undertakes to act

in the interest of
another

Powers of Trustees
Advancement

Insurance

Maintenance
Business
Investment

QUESTIONS