A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of Essay

A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds its expression. per Cardozo J, Beatty v Guggenheim Exploration Co. (1919) 225 - Essay Example The simple definition found in a freshman’s law book is a person, whom we shall call the donor, who has complete confidence in another person, (a friend, a relative, or a lawyer), who shall be called the trustee, and gives this person the right to administer his affairs (be it a house, bonds, jewels, an estate, and so on). This is what one usually understands by the word trust. Judge Cardozo gave the following definition: â€Å"when a property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee.†1 This is far from being that categorical, especially when a slew of other factors make it quite confusing, especially when there are differences between the US and the English interpretation of the constructive trust law. â€Å"Lord Wright MR2 deplored the absence of an English work on restitution and noted that the American principles [of constructive trust] stated appear to be consistent with the large and unanalyzed mass of English cases.†¦ [furthermore,] in the Restatement (1937) Lord Wright treats the constructive trust as a remedy,† (Lacy p.1) and assesses the one difference between both countries as to the interpretation and that is one of analysis. If the British judges group the equitable jurisdiction as a restitutionary one, then the remedies must therefore be given by the common law courts. On the other hand, if the English judges take Cardozo’s statement as written then the British judicial system recognizes this US law a universal one regardless of its context. (Lacy p.1) The following cases, Barnes v Addys [1874] LR 9 Ch App 244, Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378, Belmont Finance Corp v Williams Furniture Ltds [1968] 1 WLR 15555 at 1582, and R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053, will be used to illustrate the ambiguity of the constructive