Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Re‐interpreting the Quistclose Trust: A Critique of Chambers' Analysis

Re‐interpreting the Quistclose Trust: A Critique of Chambers' Analysis Dr Robert Chambers has recently argued that a loan on Quistclose terms does not actually create a trust, but rather the borrower receives the entire beneficial ownership of the funds subject only to a contractual right (enforceable by an injunction) on the part of the lender to prevent the loan being employed other than for the specified purpose. Chambers' approach, or at least something broadly similar, has received some obiter support from Potter LJ in Twinsectra Ltd v. Yardley . This article maintains that Chambers' analysis leaves unresolved a number of significant issues. It does not explain Potter LJ's emphasis on the requirement to segregate the Quistclose funds from the borrower's general assets. Similarly, it seems not applicable outside the typical Quistclose scenario; for instance, where the funds are wrongfully transferred to a third party before the failure of the specified purpose, where the Quistclose arrangement arises outside a contractual setting, and where the dispute involves a third party holding a (pre‐existing) charge. Accordingly, it is suggested that it would be quite premature to conclude that more orthodox explanations of the Quistclose trust should now be jettisoned. Copyright 2001 « Previous | Next Article » Table of Contents This Article Oxford J Legal Studies (SUMMER) 21 (2): 267-285. doi: 10.1093/ojls/21.2.267 » Abstract Free Full Text (PDF) Free Classifications Article Services Article metrics Alert me when cited Alert me if corrected Find similar articles Similar articles in Web of Science Add to my archive Download citation Request Permissions Citing Articles Load citing article information Citing articles via CrossRef Citing articles via Scopus Citing articles via Web of Science Citing articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ho, L. Articles by Smart, P. S. J. Search for related content Related Content Load related web page information Share Email this article CiteULike Delicious Facebook Google+ Mendeley Twitter What's this? Search this journal: Advanced » Current Issue Autumn 2015 35 (3) Alert me to new issues The Journal About this journal Publishers' Books for Review Rights & Permissions This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Dispatch date of the next issue We are mobile – find out more Journals Career Network General Editor Professor Timothy Endicott View full editorial board Impact Factor: 0.641 5-Yr impact factor: 0.582 For Authors Instructions to authors Submit now! Self archiving policy Open access options for authors - visit Oxford Open eWQmpDTrb5Phh6dphm369CV4khB1cLGv true Looking for your next opportunity? Looking for jobs... jQuery_1_11 = jQuery.noConflict(true); Alerting Services Email table of contents Email Advance Access CiteTrack XML RSS feed Corporate Services Advertising sales Reprints Supplements var taxonomies = ("LAW00010", "LAW00390", "LAW00410"); Most Most Read We Do This At Common Law But That In Equity The Decriminalisation of Abortion: An Argument for Modernisation To Blame or to Forgive? Reconciling Punishment and Forgiveness in Criminal Justice Rewriting the Requirement for a 'Recognized Psychiatric Injury' in Negligence Claims What Is a Political Constitution? » View all Most Read articles Most Cited Dangers of Dystopias in Penal Theory The Idea Of An Overlapping Consensus THE EMERGENCE OF CHILDREN'S RIGHTS Does Criminal Law Deter? A Behavioural Science Investigation Gauging Criminal Harm: A Living-Standard Analysis » View all Most Cited articles Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department. Online ISSN 1464-3820 - Print ISSN 0143-6503 Copyright © 2015 Oxford University Press Oxford Journals Oxford University Press Site Map Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Legal Notices Frequently Asked Questions Other Oxford University Press sites: Oxford University Press Oxford Journals China Oxford Journals Japan Academic & Professional books Children's & Schools Books Dictionaries & Reference Dictionary of National Biography Digital Reference English Language Teaching Higher Education Textbooks International Education Unit Law Medicine Music Online Products & Publishing Oxford Bibliographies Online Oxford Dictionaries Online Oxford English Dictionary Oxford Language Dictionaries Online Oxford Scholarship Online Reference Rights and Permissions Resources for Retailers & Wholesalers Resources for the Healthcare Industry Very Short Introductions World's Classics function fnc_onDomLoaded() { var query_context = getQueryContext(); PF_initOIUnderbar(query_context,":QS:default","","JRN"); PF_insertOIUnderbar(0); }; if (window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', fnc_onDomLoaded, false); } else if (window.attachEvent) { window.attachEvent('onload', fnc_onDomLoaded); } var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); try { var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-189672-16"); pageTracker._setDomainName(".oxfordjournals.org"); pageTracker._trackPageview(); } catch(err) {} http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Oxford University Press

Re‐interpreting the Quistclose Trust: A Critique of Chambers' Analysis

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/re-interpreting-the-quistclose-trust-a-critique-of-chambers-analysis-p8aUeN00Ky

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Oxford University Press
ISSN
0143-6503
eISSN
1464-3820
DOI
10.1093/ojls/21.2.267
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Dr Robert Chambers has recently argued that a loan on Quistclose terms does not actually create a trust, but rather the borrower receives the entire beneficial ownership of the funds subject only to a contractual right (enforceable by an injunction) on the part of the lender to prevent the loan being employed other than for the specified purpose. Chambers' approach, or at least something broadly similar, has received some obiter support from Potter LJ in Twinsectra Ltd v. Yardley . This article maintains that Chambers' analysis leaves unresolved a number of significant issues. It does not explain Potter LJ's emphasis on the requirement to segregate the Quistclose funds from the borrower's general assets. Similarly, it seems not applicable outside the typical Quistclose scenario; for instance, where the funds are wrongfully transferred to a third party before the failure of the specified purpose, where the Quistclose arrangement arises outside a contractual setting, and where the dispute involves a third party holding a (pre‐existing) charge. Accordingly, it is suggested that it would be quite premature to conclude that more orthodox explanations of the Quistclose trust should now be jettisoned. Copyright 2001 « Previous | Next Article » Table of Contents This Article Oxford J Legal Studies (SUMMER) 21 (2): 267-285. doi: 10.1093/ojls/21.2.267 » Abstract Free Full Text (PDF) Free Classifications Article Services Article metrics Alert me when cited Alert me if corrected Find similar articles Similar articles in Web of Science Add to my archive Download citation Request Permissions Citing Articles Load citing article information Citing articles via CrossRef Citing articles via Scopus Citing articles via Web of Science Citing articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ho, L. Articles by Smart, P. S. J. Search for related content Related Content Load related web page information Share Email this article CiteULike Delicious Facebook Google+ Mendeley Twitter What's this? Search this journal: Advanced » Current Issue Autumn 2015 35 (3) Alert me to new issues The Journal About this journal Publishers' Books for Review Rights & Permissions This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Dispatch date of the next issue We are mobile – find out more Journals Career Network General Editor Professor Timothy Endicott View full editorial board Impact Factor: 0.641 5-Yr impact factor: 0.582 For Authors Instructions to authors Submit now! Self archiving policy Open access options for authors - visit Oxford Open eWQmpDTrb5Phh6dphm369CV4khB1cLGv true Looking for your next opportunity? Looking for jobs... jQuery_1_11 = jQuery.noConflict(true); Alerting Services Email table of contents Email Advance Access CiteTrack XML RSS feed Corporate Services Advertising sales Reprints Supplements var taxonomies = ("LAW00010", "LAW00390", "LAW00410"); Most Most Read We Do This At Common Law But That In Equity The Decriminalisation of Abortion: An Argument for Modernisation To Blame or to Forgive? Reconciling Punishment and Forgiveness in Criminal Justice Rewriting the Requirement for a 'Recognized Psychiatric Injury' in Negligence Claims What Is a Political Constitution? » View all Most Read articles Most Cited Dangers of Dystopias in Penal Theory The Idea Of An Overlapping Consensus THE EMERGENCE OF CHILDREN'S RIGHTS Does Criminal Law Deter? A Behavioural Science Investigation Gauging Criminal Harm: A Living-Standard Analysis » View all Most Cited articles Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department. Online ISSN 1464-3820 - Print ISSN 0143-6503 Copyright © 2015 Oxford University Press Oxford Journals Oxford University Press Site Map Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Legal Notices Frequently Asked Questions Other Oxford University Press sites: Oxford University Press Oxford Journals China Oxford Journals Japan Academic & Professional books Children's & Schools Books Dictionaries & Reference Dictionary of National Biography Digital Reference English Language Teaching Higher Education Textbooks International Education Unit Law Medicine Music Online Products & Publishing Oxford Bibliographies Online Oxford Dictionaries Online Oxford English Dictionary Oxford Language Dictionaries Online Oxford Scholarship Online Reference Rights and Permissions Resources for Retailers & Wholesalers Resources for the Healthcare Industry Very Short Introductions World's Classics function fnc_onDomLoaded() { var query_context = getQueryContext(); PF_initOIUnderbar(query_context,":QS:default","","JRN"); PF_insertOIUnderbar(0); }; if (window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', fnc_onDomLoaded, false); } else if (window.attachEvent) { window.attachEvent('onload', fnc_onDomLoaded); } var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); try { var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-189672-16"); pageTracker._setDomainName(".oxfordjournals.org"); pageTracker._trackPageview(); } catch(err) {}

Journal

Oxford Journal of Legal StudiesOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.