法律翻译 | 英格兰及威尔士地区信托法中的“意思确定”

译者 | 吴礼奇 GULC LL.M.

一审 | LYJ  NUS LL.M.

二审 | 曾梓栩 外交学院 法本

编辑 | 王冰子 烟台大学 法本

         于杰 上海对外经贸大学本科

责编 | 戚琳颖 大连海事大学本科

Certainty of Intention in the jurisdiction of England and Wales

英格兰及威尔士地区信托法中的“意思确定”

Foundation case：Knight v Knight (1840) 49 ER 58

01 事实

02 译者总结

03 Langdale法官的判决

04 该原则在今日的适用

05 问题（Re Kayford Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 279）

06 判决（Re Kayford Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 279）

Facts:

Richard I Knight made a settlement:

“I trust to the liberality of my successors to reward any others of my old servants and tenants according to their deserts, and to their justice in continuing the estates in the male succession, according to the will of the founder of the family, my above-named grandfather.”

事实：

Richard I Knight 做出了如下安排：

我相信我的继承人会公允地为我的旧侍从以及佃户分配他们应得的财产，并且我相信他们会依照本家族创始人——我的祖父的意愿，公正地在男性子嗣中决定继承人延续家族财产。

Issue（译者总结）：

本案的法律问题为Richard I Knight 的安排是否足以证明他有意愿为遗产创设信托。

（图片来源于网络）

Lord Langdale MR’s Judgment:

As a general rule, it has been laid down, that when property is given absolutely to any person, and the same person is, by the giver who has power to command, recommended, or entreated, or wished, to dispose of that property in favour of another, the recommendation, entreaty, or wish shall be held to create a trust. First, if the words are so used, that upon the whole, they ought to be construed as imperative; Secondly, if the subject of the recommendation or wish be certain; and, Thirdly, if the objects or persons intended to have the benefit of the recommendation or wish be also certain.

Langdale法官的判决：

作为已经被确定的一般规则，当财产被完全地转移给他人，且其被财产给予人要求、建议或是恳求，或是希望该财产以有利于第三人的方式处置该财产时，建议、恳求或是希望应当被视为创设信托。第一，以明示的方式，使用的字词应当是命令式的；第二，被建议或希望信托的财产范围应当是确定的；第三，被建议或希望的信托的受益对象或是受益人应当也是确定的。

On the other hand, if the giver accompanies his expression of wish, or request by other words, from which it is to be collected, that he did not intend the wish to be imperative: or if it appears from the context that the first taker was intended to have a discretionary power to withdraw any part of the subject from the object of the wish or request: or if the objects are not such as may be ascertained with sufficient certainty, it has been held that no trust is created.

另一方面，如果原财产所有人在表达其希望或是要求时使用了其他字词，这些字词被理解为财产原所有人并没有意愿使他的希望变为命令，或者，依据语境理解，受托人旨在拥有自由裁量的权力，且其依照该权力可以撤出任意一部分希望或要求的财产，或者受益对象没有足够的确定性，那么，法院将会认为信托未设立。

...and in such cases, we are told (2 Ves. jun. 632, 633) that the question “never turns upon the grammatical import of words—they may be imperative, but not necessarily so; the subject-matter, the situation of the parties, and the probable intent must be considered.” And (10 Ves. 536) “wherever the subject, to be administered as trust property, and the objects, for whose benefit it is to be administered, are to be found in a will, not expressly creating a trust, the indefinite nature and quantum of the subject, and the indefinite nature of the objects, are always used by the Court as evidence, that the mind of the testator was not to create a trust; and the difficulty, that would be imposed upon the Court to say what should be so applied, or to what objects, has been the foundation of the argument, that no trust was intended;” or, as Lord Eldon expresses it in another case (Turn. & Russ. 159), “Where a trust is to be raised characterized by certainty, the very difficult of doing it is an argument which goes, to a certain extent, towards inducing the Court to say, it is not sufficiently clear what the testator intended.”

在这种情况下，我们知道问题“永远不是由字词在语法上的重要性所决定的——他们可以是命令性的，但是这不是必须的；希望创设信托的财产范围、当事人双方的情况以及财产原所有人可能的意愿都应当被考虑(2 Ves. jun. 632, 633) 。” 同时，“在一个没有明确指示创设信托的遗嘱中，无论在该遗嘱何处有对信托财产的范围或是信托受益人范围进行指示，法院经常以财产的范围和数量无法确定或是信托受益人无法确定为理由认为立遗嘱人没有意愿创设信托；该理论给法院造成的困难在于，法院需要指出之处在于何种（法律）应当在该情况下适用，或者，做出立遗嘱人无意愿创立信托的判决的目的是什么 (10 Ves. 536)；”或者，如Eldon法官 在另一个案件(Turn. & Russ. 159)中指出的那样，“当信托设立的特征被公认为“确定性”时，这样做的困难基于一个论点：从某种程度上，他诱导包括法院认定立遗嘱人的意思不够清晰。”

（图片来源于网络）

It is a common observation in all such cases, that the testator might, if he had intended it, have created an express trust; but the authorities shew that if there be sufficient certainty, and nothing in the context of the will to oppose the conclusion, the trust may and must be implied; and the question is, whether there is a trust by implication.

在所有这些情况下，一个普遍现象是，如果立遗嘱人有意图，他可能已经创设了一个明示的信托；但是权威的观点表明，如果有足够的确定性，同时，根据语境无法做出相反的结论，则信托可以是也必然是由默示创设的，那么问题是，是否存在默示的信托。

I think, therefore, that there is great reason to doubt the intention to create an imperative trust: and looking to the subject to which his wishes were directed—observing the absolute gift of all his estates, real and personal, with certain exceptions; and that, in the last clause, he has not used the words “my said estate,” or any words clearly and certainly indicating all that he had given to those whom he has called his successors, but had simply used the words, “the estates,” leaving it be matter of by no means easy construction, whether he intended under that expression to include the personal estate as well as the real; and it not being certain, having regard to the subsequent reference to the will of his grandfather, whether he meant to include more than the estates of his grandfather, to which he had himself succeeded; and observing that some part of the personal estate, at least, was subjected to the liberality of his successors, I think that there is reason to doubt whether the subject is sufficiently certain for a trust of this nature.

因此，我认为有足够的理由质疑创设命令式的信托的意图：检视他的意愿所指向的财产——除了一些例外，分析其所有财产所有权的转移，包括不动产和个人财产；并且，在最后一个条款，他没有使用“我所说的财产”或其他可以明确而肯定地表明他已经把财产给予给那些他称为继承人的词语，而是，仅简单地使用“财产”一词，使得他的意图难以被明确地理解，他是否希望通过这种表达使得个人财产和不动产都包含在内；考虑到后续提到了他祖父的意愿，目前还不确定他是否希望包含他所继承的其祖父的财产；同时，至少一部分个人财产将会基于其继承人公允地判断分配给立遗嘱的旧侍从以及佃户，我认为有理由质疑信托财产的范围足够确定以满足创设信托的要求。

Application Nowadays: 

Re Kayford Ltd (in liquidation) [1975] 1 WLR 279

该原则在今日的适用：

Re Kayford Ltd (in liquidation) [1975] 1 WLR 279

（图片来源于网络）

Issue:

The question for me is whether the money in the bank account (apart from the dormant amount of £47.80 and interest on it) is held on trust for those who paid it, or whether it forms part of the general assets of the company. 

问题：

对于我来说，该案的问题是银行账户内的资金（除了休眠账户内的£47.80及其利息）是由支付者以信托方式持有，还是属于公司的一般资产。

Judgment:

There is no doubt about the so-called “three certainties” of a trust. The subject-matter to be held on trust is clear, and so are the beneficial interests therein, as well as the beneficiaries. As for the requisite certainty of words, it is well settled that a trust can be created without using the words “trust” or “confidence” or the like: the question is whether in substance a sufficient intention to create a trust has been manifested.

判决：

信托的“三个确定性”是毋庸置疑的。信托的标的是确定的，同时受益权和受益人是确定的。至于用词确定性的必要性问题，一般认为即使没有使用“信托”或是“信任”之类的词语，信托依旧可以被创设：问题是是否实质性地充分表达了创设信托的意图。

In In re Nanwa Gold Mines Ltd [1955] 1 W.L.R. 1080 the money was sent on the faith of a promise to keep it in a separate account, but there is nothing in that case or in any other authority that I know of to suggest that this is essential. I feel no doubt that here a trust was created. From the outset the advice (which was accepted) was to establish a trust account at the bank. The whole purpose of what was done was to ensure that the moneys remained in the beneficial ownership of those who sent them, and a trust is the obvious means of achieving this. No doubt the general rule is that if you send money to a company for goods which are not delivered, you are merely a creditor of the company unless a trust has been created. The sender may create a trust by using appropriate words when he sends the money (though I wonder how many do this, even if they are equity lawyers), or the company may do it by taking suitable steps on or before receiving the money.