The gift was to a group of people for a purpose that would fail.

Land was left to be used as a sports ground for employees of a company and any other persons the trustees may have allowed to use the grounds.

The land was held for ascertainable individuals who would supervise the trust. It was not a purpose trust and was not contrary to the beneficiary principle as the individuals would ensure no fraud.

Money was left for the use of a local political party.

The money left to the unincorporated association could not be held on the contractual analysis as the local club was not in control of its own finances but regulated by the national party.

The testatrix left property to the Anti-Vivisection Society.

The gift was not a purpose trust but an accretion to the funds of the association for the members, subject to their contract, to do with as they wished. There was no problem with inalienability as the members could, if they wished, wind up the association and take their property. Note: the gift failed on another point as it had ceased to exist by the time the testatrix died.