In fourteen pages this paper examines how as administrators trustees owe to beneficiaries a duty of care in an overview that includes 2000's Trustees Act. Seven sources are listed in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: TS14_TEtrust2.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
enforceable by them which is fundamental to the concept of a trust, If the beneficiaries
have no rights enforceable against the trustees there are no trusts"
Per Millet LJ in Armitage v Nurse[1998]. The way in which a trust is used may be seen as a broad ranging issue, with
many different motivations and purposes. It can be argued that where promises are made, and they are not enforceable by the beneficiary then the trusts are morally questionable. In the
recent years there have been changes, and with the Trustee Act 2000. However, if we look at the situation overall, then we
can consider how the new act has changed the situation. However, the surprising factor is that until this act was passed there was no statutory duty of care owned by
the trustees to the beneficiaries. However, we can argue that this was known shortfall, and reflected in the way that charitable trust were granted charitable status and considered in the
time before this change. If we are going to consider trusts, then the first step we need to take is to define them. A trust is "1. A confidence
reposed by one person in conveying or bequeathing property to another that
the latter will apply to a purpose or purposes desired by the former. These purposes are generally