Against Common Sense?
Re Vinogradoff is a case that I find illogical.
In Re Vinogradoff, a war loan stock was transferred into the joint names of the transferor and her granddaughter, who was then 4 years old. Following her death, it was claimed that the child held the stock on resulting trust, reason being there was no evidence to establish an intention to make a gift.
Surely this can’t be right. The fact that the granddaughter was only four at the time of the transfer would mean that no reasonable person would have intended to make such a young child a trustee. On top of that, by virtue of Law of Property Act 1925 made it clear that a person under the age of majority cannot be a trustee. Furthermore, since most gratuitous transfers are intended to be gifts, the presumption should give way to the slightest contrary evidence, and this include evidence of the surrounding circumstances and common sense inferences to be drawn thereform.
I don’t understand how this decision can be justified.
Took me time to read all the comments, but I definitely enjoyed the article. It proved to become Quite useful to me and I’m certain to all the commenters here It is always good when you can not only be informed, but also entertained I’m certain you had fun writing this post.
Pretty insightful submit. Never thought that it was this simple after all. I had spent a excellent deal of my time looking for someone to explain this subject clearly and you’re the only one that ever did that. Kudos to you! Keep it up