The decision in Pennington v Waine has introduced a much needed degree of flexibility in the strict rules on transfer of legal interests. Giving effect to the intention of the settlor should be the primary concern of the courts. Discuss.

Introduction: An introduction could explain that legal rules can be modified by equity. Equity was introduced to avoid the rigid legal rules. Brief statement of how you are going to structure the essay.

Body of the essay: The strict rules should be outlined, referring to the legal requirements for the transfer of property. Reference to cases such as Jones v Lock could be made to illustrate.

The equitable rules for avoiding this rigidity can be considered. Avoid a list of them, Strong v Bird, estoppel, and DMC can be outlined but better to focus on the rules that Pennington has affected – Re Rose, Re Fry, Mascall v Mascall.

Explain the principle before Pennington, then know your judgments, what was the minority view of the transaction, what was Arden LJ's alternative option. Arden relied on statements in Choithram.

Your essay should discuss and it is not necessary to agree with the statement, you can disagree. Comment on the use of unconscionability as a basis for decisions. It is the fundamental basis of equity to look at the conscience. However, has this created too much uncertainty? A good answer will make some reference to academic articles and views of this decision.

Conclusion: this should not be a repetition of the essay but a conclusion of where your argument has led. Do you agree with the statement or not.