Chapter 17 Multiple choice questions

. The Law Commission consultation paper Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown (Law Com No 307) Cm 7182, July 2007 rejected calls for:

"Informal" cohabitants to be given the same rights as married couples and civil partners in the event of separation.

Compulsory express trusts on the transfer of land.

Home information packs.

Free debt counselling for unmarried cohabitants in financial difficulty.

. Which of the following is expressly exempted from the formality requirements laid down in The Law of Property Act 1925 s.53?

Resulting, constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel.

Resulting or constructive trusts.

All implied trusts.

Resulting, implied or constructive trusts.

. Which of the following best encapsulates the ratio decidendi of Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17; [2007] 2 WLR 831?

Where land is co-owned it is presumed that beneficial ownership is equal.

The presumption of joint ownership is rebutted if there are unequal contributions to purchase price.

Where land is in joint names it is presumed that beneficial ownership is also joint.

The beneficial share owned by a female cohabitant is half, unless her financial contribution justifies a larger share

. Which of the following statements is still true after Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17; [2007] 2 WLR 831?

"where A pays (wholly) for the purchase of property which is vested in B alone, there is a presumption that A did not intend to make a gift to B. The money or property is held on trust for A".

"where A pays (wholly or in part) for the purchase of property which is vested in B alone, there is a presumption that A did not intend to make a gift to B. The money or property is held on trust for A".

"where A pays (in part) for the purchase of property which is vested in B alone, there is a presumption that A did not intend to make a gift to B. The money or property is held on trust for A."

"where A makes a voluntary payment to B for the purchase of property which is vested in B alone, there is a presumption that A and B hold the beneficial interest in equal shares."

. According to the leading House of Lords case, Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107, which of the following cannot give rise to an interest under an informal trust:

'any arrangement that the property is to be shared beneficially evidenced by indirect financial contribution to the acquisition of the house".

'any understanding that the property is to be shared beneficially based on evidence of express discussions between the partners, however imperfectly remembered"

'any agreement that the property is to be shared beneficially based on evidence of express discussions between the partners, however imprecise the terms may have been'.

'common intention that the property is to be shared beneficially inferred from direct financial contribution to the acquisition of the house".

. Which of the following might count as detrimental reliance suffered in the expectation that you will acquire an interest in a home occupied by you and the legal owner with whom you are in a relationship?

Cleaning the home

Bringing up children of the relationship

Giving up work-related accommodation to move in with the legal owner

Getting a divorce

. "A resulting, implied or constructive trust—and it is unneccessary for present purposes to distinguish between these three classes of trusts—is created whenever the trustee has so conducted himself that it would be inequitable to deny the cestui que trust a beneficial interest in the land acquired. And he will be held so to have conducted himself if by his words or conduct he has induced the cestui que trust to act to his own detriment in the belief that by so acting he was acquiring a beneficial interest in the land". The preceding speech of Lord Diplock in Gissing v Gissing gave rise to:

Lord Denning's "New Model Army"

Lord Denning's "Constructive Trust of a New Model"

Lord Denning's "New Style Trust of Land"

Lord Denning's "New Model Resulting Trust"

. What are the requirements for proprietary estoppel?

A representation made, or assurance given, by the owner of land (A) to another person B to the effect that B would acquire some interest in A's land upon which assurance B has relied in the mistaken belief that he will acquire an interest in land.

A representation made, or assurance given, by the owner of land (A) to another person B to the effect that B would acquire some interest in A's land upon which assurance B has reasonably relied in such a way that it would be detrimental to B and unconscionable of A for A subsequently to assert his ownership of the land unencumbered by any rights claimed by B.

A representation made, or assurance given, by the owner of land (A) to another person B to the effect that B would acquire some interest in A's land upon which assurance B has reasonably relied in such a way that it would be detrimental to B for A subsequently to assert his ownership of the land unencumbered by any rights claimed by B.

A has made a mistake as to his or her legal rights and expended money or energy on the faith of that mistaken belief where B knows that he has a legal right which is inconsistent with A's claim, and knows of A's mistaken belief, but nevertheless by act or omission encouraged A in his or her mistaken expenditure.

. Despite the restrictive approach to proprietary estoppel in Yeoman's Row v Cobbe, it was applied quite liberally in Thorner v Majors (a.k.a Thorner v Curtis) [2009] UKHL 18; [2009] 1 W.L.R. 776. What factor, absent from Yeoman, best explains the availability of proprietary estoppel in Thorner?

Thorner involved a "gentleman's agreement".

Thorner involved a domestic or non-commercial context.

In Thorner the legal owner had died.

In Thorner the legal owner had been enriched by the contribution made by the non-owner.

. Which of the following statements does NOT summarize an aspect of the ratio in Yeoman's Row Management Ltd v Cobbe [2008] UKHL 55; [2008] 1 WLR 1752?

There was no proprietary estoppel because traditional practice was to allow parties to withdraw from an informal contract in such a case.

The parties were bound "in honour" to stick to their arrangement.

The claimant had assumed the risk that the owner of the block would withdraw from the arrangement.

A quantum meruit was awarded to ensure that the land owner was not unjustly enriched by the time and labour expended by the claimant.

Quiz Content