4 ms·

Why does a trust like this not run afoul of the rule against perpetuities? [1] Is it because as long as there are living directors, they can technically vote t

by ohazi 5y ago

Why does a trust like this not run afoul of the rule against perpetuities? [1] Is it because as long as there are living directors, they can technically vote to change the rules? Who would these directors for the Crown Estate be? The Queen? Parliament? A person at the top of the management chain? Is there an actual mechanism (other than tradition, good will, etc.) that prevents the entity managing/controlling the Crown Estate from voting to change the rules about how it's governed and who gets what proceeds? It seems that the answer to this question is that an act of Parliament could (probably?) change the rules, therefore it's not a perpetuity, and the share to the monarch is a tradition that they just aren't inclined to change right now. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

vmception 5y ago
Why? Because that’s not a real law, its a creature of the courts and every time the legislature got involved it was to make a real law that abolishes any notion of the concept of limitations from your own article “Many jurisdictions have statutes that either cancel out the rule entirely or clarify it” The places that only clarified it have created lengths of time exceeding anyone. In the US some states made a length of time longer than the age of the nation itself UK areas having similarly long results or abolishing the notion
- M2Ys4U 5y ago
  >Why? Because that’s not a real law, its a creature of the courts and every time the legislature got involved it was to make a real law Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Common law is law, and Parliament, the courts and the government all recognise it as being "real law". There's nothing special about statute law that makes it any more "real" than common law. The only difference is that statute law can do anything, including modifying or abolishing provisions of common law, whereas common law can't expressly contradict statute because of parliamentary sovereignty. (And even parliamentary sovereignty has its theoretical limits - in R (Jackson) v Attorney General the law lords opined in obiter dicta that PS wasn't necessarily absolute)[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Jackson)_v_Attorney_General#Limits_to_parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Jackson)_v_Attorney_General...
  - vmception 5y ago
    Only a squabble over the name of the distinction Everytime the legislature gets involved they curb stomp the courts view of reality, thats the only point

by ohazi 5y ago

vmception 5y ago

Why? Because that’s not a real law, its a creature of the courts and every time the legislature got involved it was to make a real law that abolishes any notion of the concept of limitations from your own article “Many jurisdictions have statutes that either cancel out the rule entirely or clarify it” The places that only clarified it have created lengths of time exceeding anyone. In the US some states made a length of time longer than the age of the nation itself UK areas having similarly long results or abolishing the notion

M2Ys4U 5y ago
>Why? Because that’s not a real law, its a creature of the courts and every time the legislature got involved it was to make a real law Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Common law is law, and Parliament, the courts and the government all recognise it as being "real law". There's nothing special about statute law that makes it any more "real" than common law. The only difference is that statute law can do anything, including modifying or abolishing provisions of common law, whereas common law can't expressly contradict statute because of parliamentary sovereignty. (And even parliamentary sovereignty has its theoretical limits - in R (Jackson) v Attorney General the law lords opined in obiter dicta that PS wasn't necessarily absolute)[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Jackson)_v_Attorney_General#Limits_to_parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Jackson)_v_Attorney_General...
- vmception 5y ago
  Only a squabble over the name of the distinction Everytime the legislature gets involved they curb stomp the courts view of reality, thats the only point