可辩护的禀赋:比较英国和古罗马法的不同方法

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW Trusts & Trustees Pub Date : 2021-07-14 DOI:10.1093/TANDT/TTAB028
S. Pratt
{"title":"可辩护的禀赋:比较英国和古罗马法的不同方法","authors":"S. Pratt","doi":"10.1093/TANDT/TTAB028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Whilst the parallels between ancient Roman fideicommissa and English trusts are well-documented, the author argues that insufficient attention has been given to their fundamental differences. This is particularly evident in the different methodologies employed by each system to protect endowments from potential attack by impatient beneficiaries. Accordingly, this article explores how English jurisprudence relied upon conditional terms—possibly informed by ancient Greek and Neoplatonic scholarship—to achieve defensibility and security for English trusts in ways that differ significantly from the Roman scheme. By doing so, this article raises important new questions about how English law has placed boundaries upon valid conditionality.","PeriodicalId":43396,"journal":{"name":"Trusts & Trustees","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Defensible endowments: comparing different approaches in English and ancient Roman law\",\"authors\":\"S. Pratt\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/TANDT/TTAB028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Whilst the parallels between ancient Roman fideicommissa and English trusts are well-documented, the author argues that insufficient attention has been given to their fundamental differences. This is particularly evident in the different methodologies employed by each system to protect endowments from potential attack by impatient beneficiaries. Accordingly, this article explores how English jurisprudence relied upon conditional terms—possibly informed by ancient Greek and Neoplatonic scholarship—to achieve defensibility and security for English trusts in ways that differ significantly from the Roman scheme. By doing so, this article raises important new questions about how English law has placed boundaries upon valid conditionality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trusts & Trustees\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trusts & Trustees\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/TANDT/TTAB028\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trusts & Trustees","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/TANDT/TTAB028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然古罗马信托法和英国信托法之间的相似之处有据可查,但作者认为,人们对它们的根本区别关注不足。这一点在每个系统为保护捐赠基金免受不耐烦的受益人的潜在攻击而采用的不同方法中尤为明显。因此,本文探讨了英国法理学如何依赖于条件条款——可能受到古希腊和新柏拉图主义学术的影响——以与罗马方案明显不同的方式实现英国信托的可防御性和安全性。通过这样做,本文提出了关于英国法律如何在有效条件上设置边界的重要新问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Defensible endowments: comparing different approaches in English and ancient Roman law
Whilst the parallels between ancient Roman fideicommissa and English trusts are well-documented, the author argues that insufficient attention has been given to their fundamental differences. This is particularly evident in the different methodologies employed by each system to protect endowments from potential attack by impatient beneficiaries. Accordingly, this article explores how English jurisprudence relied upon conditional terms—possibly informed by ancient Greek and Neoplatonic scholarship—to achieve defensibility and security for English trusts in ways that differ significantly from the Roman scheme. By doing so, this article raises important new questions about how English law has placed boundaries upon valid conditionality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
66.70%
发文量
92
期刊最新文献
CC14 guidance update: greener investments, greater uncertainty? Australian tax arrangements for trusts: Section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act (1936) Cth Fathers, daughters, and matters of trust In brief An analysis of the risks that arise for discretionary trust settlements in the event of a divorce: to what extent does the Family Court’s asset division approach undermine discretionary trusts?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1