| 单词 | Saunders v Vautier, rule in |
| 释义 | Saunders訴Vautier之規則 The doctrine that beneficiaries under a trust may end the trust by directing the trustee to transfer the trust property to themselves or their nominees, despite a contrary statement in the trust instrument, provided that the beneficiaries’ interest is vested and they are of full legal capacity (sui juris): Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav 115, 49 ER 282; Stephenson v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 625, 1 WLR 882. This right exists notwithstanding an intervening discretionary trust, if the sole objects of that trust are sui juris and concur: Re Smith, Public Trustee v Aspinall [1928] Ch 915. The doctrine applies equally to a sole beneficiary. It also applies in the same way where the beneficiary is a charity, whether corporate or incorporate (Wharton v Masterman [1895] AC 186 (HL)), but not where the alleged beneficiary is ‘charity’ in the abstract, there being provisions for the future ascertainment of particular charitable institutions (Re Jefferies, Finch v Martin [1936] 2 All ER 626). See also Beneficiary; Nominee; Trust. 儘管在信託文書有相反的陳述，如有已授與受益人的權益及受益人在法律上有行為能力，則此原則容許信託的受益人可指示信託人向他們或其代名人轉易信託財產以終止信託：Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav 115, 49 ER 282; Stephenson v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 625, 1 WLR 882。儘管有干預的酌情信託，如信託的唯一對象是完全行為能力人及贊同，則此權有效：Re Smith, Public Trustee v Aspinall [1928] Ch 915。此原則同樣適用於唯一的受益人。如受益人無論是法團或成立為法團的慈善組織，(Wharton v Masterman [1895] AC 186 （上議院）)，則同樣的方法也適用，但如宣稱的受益人是抽象的「慈善組織」， 有待將來確定個別慈善機構的條文，則不適用（Re Jefferies, Finch v Martin [1936] 2 All ER 626）。另見 Beneficiary; Nominee; Trust。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。