| Knapp v Knapp | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of SA |
| Decided | 5 February 1945 |
| Citation(s) | [1945] SAStRp 4, [1944] SASR 257 |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Local Court, Adelaide |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Mayo J |
Knapp v Knapp, [1] is the possession by intention of donor case, decided in the Supreme Court of South Australia, Australia.
The husband, the appellant, was the owner of a motor car. He said to his wife, the defendant, that he would give it to her as a birthday present. The car was registered in the husband's name, and subsequently re-registered in his name. The husband received a petrol allowance. The wife had custody of the car but used her husband’s petrol allowance. The wife made an action for the car and was successful. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court of South Australia. The case was heard by Mayo J.
The Court, Mayo J, applied the four elements of gifting (from Handshin v Hackett, [2] where no co-ownership is envisaged.
1. Intention by donor to give absolute right to exclusive enjoyment.
The car was registered in the husband's name, not the wife's, so he could get the petrol allowance. Therefore, he is the owner within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act. That which is lawful is preferred to that which is not. Additionally, the insurance was in his name, not her name.
2. The donee must accept the gift by overt conduct.
There is no evidence that the car was passed from the husband to the wife as a gift.
3. The donee acquires the gift in a timeframe that meets the donors intentions.
The wife did not seem to have right of use in the timeframe under discussion, and so there was no delivery to her.
4. To be a gift there will be an absence of valuable consideration, which distinguishes it from sale or barter.
The husband is the owner of the motor car by purchase. He does not appear to have given it to his wife.
In conclusion, the judgment of the local court was set aside. The order was against the wife, and the husband recovered the car.
Joseph Benedict Chifley was an Australian politician who served as the 16th prime minister of Australia from 1945 to 1949. He held office as the leader of the Australian Labor Party (ALP).
A fixture, as a legal concept, means any physical property that is permanently attached (fixed) to real property. Property not affixed to real property is considered chattel property. Fixtures are treated as a part of real property, particularly in the case of a security interest. A classic example of a fixture is a building, which, in the absence of language to the contrary in a contract of sale, is considered part of the land itself and not a separate piece of property. Generally speaking, the test for deciding whether an article is a fixture or a chattel turns on the purpose of attachment. If the purpose was to enhance the land, the article is likely a fixture; if the article was affixed to enhance the use of the chattel itself, the article is likely a chattel.
A third-party beneficiary, in the law of contracts, is a person who may have the right to sue on a contract, despite not having originally been an active party to the contract. This right, known as a ius quaesitum tertio, arises when the third party is the intended beneficiary of the contract, as opposed to a mere incidental beneficiary. It vests when the third party relies on or assents to the relationship, and gives the third party the right to sue either the promisor or the promisee of the contract, depending on the circumstances under which the relationship was created.
A gift, in the law of property, is the voluntary and immediate transfer of property from one person to another without consideration. There are several type of gifts in property law, most notably inter vivos gifts which are made in the donor's lifetime and causa mortis (deathbed) gifts which are made in expectation of the donor's imminent death. Both types of gifts share three elements which must be met in order for the gift to be legally effective: donative intent, the delivery of the gift to the donee, and the acceptance of the gift. In addition to those elements, causa mortis gifts require that the donor must die of the impending peril that he or she had contemplated when making the gift.
In the criminal law of Australia, self-defence is a legal defence to a charge of causing injury or death in defence of the person or, to a limited extent, property, or a partial defence to murder if the degree of force used was excessive.
Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock was a Hong Kong dockyard, once among the largest in Asia.
R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53 is an English case heard by the House of Lords on appeal from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The case concerned the interpretation of the word "appropriates" in the Theft Act 1968. The relevant statute is as follows:
Australian trust law is the law of trusts as it is applied in Australia. It is derived from, and largely continues to follow English trust law, as modified by state and federal legislation. A number of unique features of Australian trust law arise from interactions with the Australian systems of company law, family law and taxation.
T Choithram International SA v Pagarani[2000] UKPC 46 was a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from the British Virgin Islands in relation to the vesting of trust property in a trustee.
Mary Elizabeth Croghan Schenley was an American philanthropist to the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Greatest Gift is a 1943 short story written by Philip Van Doren Stern, loosely based on the Charles Dickens novel "A Christmas Carol", which became the basis for the film It's a Wonderful Life (1946). It was self-published as a booklet in 1943 and published as a book in 1944.
In Washburn v. Commissioner, 5 T.C. 1333, the United States Tax Court attempted to set down some guidelines to determine whether a prize or award qualified as a gift. During 1941, Mrs. Washburn's telephone number was randomly selected and the radio program Pot O'Gold called her and awarded her $900 for simply answering the phone. The check was delivered within a half hour by a messenger with a telegram that read: "Herewith draft for nine hundred dollars outright cash gift with our compliments presented by Tum's Pot O'Gold program. Congratulations from Tommy Tucker and ourselves. [Signed] Lewis Howe Company, Makers of Tums." 36
In English law, secret trusts are a class of trust defined as an arrangement between a testator and a trustee, made to come into force after death, that aims to benefit a person without having been written in a formal will. The property is given to the trustee in the will, and he would then be expected to pass it on to the real beneficiary. For these to be valid, the person seeking to enforce the trust must prove that the testator intended to form a trust, that this intention was communicated to the trustee, and that the trustee accepted his office. There are two types of secret trust — fully secret and half-secret. A fully secret trust is one with no mention in the will whatsoever. In the case of a half-secret trust, the face of the will names the trustee as trustee, but does not give the trust's terms, including the beneficiary. The most important difference lies in communication of the trust: the terms of a half-secret trust must be communicated to the trustee before the execution of the will, whereas in the case of a fully secret trust the terms may be communicated after the execution of the will, as long as this is before the testator's death.
Resulting trusts in English law are trusts created where property is not properly disposed of. It comes from the Latin resultare, meaning to spring back, and was defined by Megarry VC as "essentially a property concept; any property that a man does not effectually dispose of remains his own". These trusts come in two forms: automatic resulting trusts, and presumed resulting trusts. Automatic resulting trusts arise from a "gap" in the equitable title of property. The equitable maxim "equity abhors a vacuum" is followed: it is against principle for a piece of property to have no owner. As such, the courts assign the property to somebody in a resulting trust to avoid this becoming an issue. They occur in one of four situations: where there is no declaration of trust, where an express trust fails, where there is surplus property, or upon the dissolution of an unincorporated association. Rules differ depending on the situation and the type of original trust under dispute; failed charitable trusts, for example, have the property reapplied in a different way from other forms of trust.
Louth v Diprose, is an Australian contract law and equity case, in which unconscionable conduct is considered.
Sir Henry Armand Bland was a senior Australian public servant. He was Secretary of the Department of Defence from 1968 to 1970.
David Francis Everett was an Australian criminal, writer and former member of the Australian Special Air Service Regiment and Karen National Liberation Army. During his manhunt he was regarded as the most wanted man in the history of Australian criminals.
Greenwood Memory Lawn Mortuary & Cemetery is the official name given to a cemetery located at 2300 West Van Buren Street in Phoenix, Arizona owned by Dignity Memorial. The cemetery, which resulted as a merger of two historical cemeteries, Greenwood Memorial Park and Memory Lawn Memorial Park, is the final resting place of various notable former residents of Arizona. Pioneers, governors, congressman, government officials, journalists, race car drivers, soldiers, actors and actresses are among the many notable decedents who are interred in the cemetery.
Commonwealth v. Aves, 35 Mass. 193 (1836), was a case in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the subject of transportation of slaves to free states. In August 1836, Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that slaves brought to Massachusetts "for any temporary purpose of business or pleasure" were entitled to freedom. The case was the most important legal victory for abolitionists in the 1830s and set a major precedent throughout the North.
Clare Foley (1913-1997) was an Australian lawyer and solicitor.
Pearson, Gail., Commercial Law: Commentary and Materials, 2nd Ed, Thompson Legal, 2004