W6 Three Certainties 解题思路
W6 三大确定性 解题思路

I. Introduction  一、导言

1. Identify the Goal: State that the validity of the purported express trust(s) depends on satisfying the Three Certainties requirement.  
   确定目标：说明所谓的明示信托的有效性取决于是否满足三个确定性的要求。
2. State the Three Certainties: Name them: Certainty of Intention (Words), Certainty of Subject Matter, and Certainty of Objects.  
   陈述三个确定性：指出它们：意图确定性（措辞）、标的物确定性和受益人确定性。
3. Authority: Cite the general authority establishing this requirement (e.g., Knight v Knight or similar reference from W6 materials).  
   权威依据：引用确立此要求的一般权威依据（例如，Knight v Knight 或来自 W6 材料的类似参考文献）。
4. Approach: State you will analyse each certainty for the relevant disposition(s).
   方法：说明你将为相关的财产处置分析每一个确定性。

• Template: "To establish a valid express trust, the Three Certainties must be present: Certainty of Intention, Certainty of Subject Matter, and Certainty of Objects (Knight v Knight ). Each certainty will be assessed for the disposition(s) in question."  
  模板：“要建立一个有效的明示信托，必须具备三个确定性：意图确定性、标的物确定性和受益人确定性（Knight v Knight）。将针对所讨论的财产处置评估每一个确定性。”

II. Certainty of Intention (Certainty of Words)
二、意图的确定性（措辞的确定性）

1. State the Principle: The settlor must demonstrate a clear intention to create a legally binding trust obligation, imposing duties on the trustee, rather than just expressing a wish, hope, or moral obligation. Equity looks to substance/intent, not form; specific words like "trust" are not required (Paul v Constance; Richards v Delbridge ). Actions can also evidence intention (Re Kayford ).  
   说明原则：财产授予人必须表明明确的意图，即创设具有法律约束力的信托义务，对受托人施加义务，而不仅仅是表达一种愿望、希望或道德义务。衡平法着眼于实质/意图，而非形式；不需要像“信托”这样的特定词语（Paul v Constance；Richards v Delbridge）。行为也可以证明意图（Re Kayford）。

• Template: "Certainty of intention requires a clear demonstration that the settlor intended to impose a legally binding trust obligation. The court assesses this objectively based on the words used or actions taken, looking to the substance of the transaction (Paul v Constance )."  
  模板：“意图确定性要求明确表明财产授予人意图施加具有法律约束力的信托义务。法院根据所使用的措辞或所采取的行动，客观地评估这一点，着眼于交易的实质（Paul v Constance）。”

2. Identify the Wording: Quote the specific words used in the disposition that relate to intention.
   识别措辞：引用在产权处置中使用的与意图相关的具体措辞。
3. Analyse the Wording (Branching Logic):
   分析措辞（分支逻辑）：

• Branch A: Do the words appear Imperative (Mandatory)?
  分支 A：这些措辞是否显得具有强制性（义务性）？

• Test/Standard: Look for words like "shall," "must," "direct," "on trust," "hold on trust," "entrusted," "is to be...". These generally indicate a command or duty (McPhail v Doulton ).  
  测试/标准：寻找诸如“应”、“必须”、“指示”、“信托”、“持有信托”、“委托”、“即将是……”之类的词语。这些通常表示命令或义务 (McPhail v Doulton)。
• If YES (Words seem Imperative):
  如果是 (措辞似乎是命令式的):

• Application: State that the words used are imperative and impose a non-discretionary duty.
  应用：说明所使用的措辞是命令式的，并施加非酌情义务。
• Case/Support: Cite McPhail v Doulton for imperative nature, or Comiskey if overcoming precatory words. If "on trust" is used, state it's strong evidence.  
  案例/支持：引用 McPhail v Doulton 的命令性质，或 Comiskey（如果克服了劝诱性措辞）。如果使用了“信托”一词，则说明它是强有力的证据。
• Conclusion (Tentative): Certainty of Intention is likely satisfied.
  结论（暂定）：意图确定性可能已满足。
• Template: "The use of the word[s] '...' [e.g., 'shall', 'direct', 'on trust'] is imperative, indicating an intention to impose a mandatory legal obligation on [Recipient], not merely a moral one. This suggests Certainty of Intention is satisfied (McPhail v Doulton )."  
  模板：“使用“[词语]‘…’[例如，‘应’、‘指示’、‘信托’]是强制性的，表明有意对[接收人]施加强制性法律义务，而不仅仅是道德义务。这表明意图确定性已满足（McPhail v Doulton）。”
• Caveat: Briefly consider if context suggests sham intention (Midland Bank v Wyatt ), although less common focus on basic problems. Template: "Unless surrounding circumstances indicate a lack of genuine intent (Midland Bank v Wyatt ), the imperative language satisfies certainty of intention."  
  注意事项：简要考虑上下文是否暗示虚假意图（Midland Bank v Wyatt），尽管较少关注基本问题。模板：“除非周围环境表明缺乏真诚意图（Midland Bank v Wyatt），否则强制性语言满足意图确定性。”

• If NO (Words seem Precatory or Ambiguous): Proceed to Branch B.
  如果否（措辞似乎是祈使性的或含糊不清的）：进入分支 B。

• Branch B: Do the words appear Precatory (Expressing Hope/Wish/Confidence)?
  分支 B：这些措辞是否显得是祈使性的（表达希望/愿望/信心）？

• Test/Standard: Look for words like "hope," "wish," "desire," "confidence," "trusting that," "understanding that," "recommend," "request". These alone are generally insufficient (Lambe v Eames; Re Adams ). Also consider phrases like "to be at his/her disposal" which strongly indicate a gift (Lambe v Eames ).  
  测试/标准：寻找诸如“希望”、“期望”、“渴望”、“确信”、“信任”、“理解”、“推荐”、“请求”之类的词语。 这些词语通常本身并不充分（Lambe v Eames; Re Adams）。 还要考虑诸如“由他/她支配”之类的短语，这些短语强烈表明是礼物（Lambe v Eames）。
• If YES (Precatory Words Present):
  如果是（存在祈使性词语）：

• Rule: Apply the Construction Rule – examine the entire clause/document context (Re Adams; Comiskey ). Subsequent mandatory language can override earlier precatory words (Comiskey ).  
  规则：适用解释规则——检查整个条款/文件上下文（Re Adams; Comiskey）。 后续的强制性语言可以覆盖先前的祈使性词语（Comiskey）。
• Application - Sub-Branch B1 (No Overriding Imperative Words): Analyse if there are any other words imposing a clear duty. If not, the precatory words dominate.
  适用 - 子分支 B1（没有凌驾性命令性词语）：分析是否存在其他施加明确义务的词语。 如果没有，则祈使性词语占主导地位。

• Case/Support: Cite Re Adams (for 'confidence') or Lambe v Eames (general principle).  
  案例/支持：引用 Re Adams（关于“信心”）或 Lambe v Eames（一般原则）。
• Conclusion: Certainty of Intention fails.
  结论：意图确定性失败。
• Template: "The clause uses precatory words such as '...' [e.g., 'hope', 'in full confidence']. Following Re Adams, such language typically indicates only a moral obligation. As there are no subsequent mandatory directions to override this, Certainty of Intention is not established."  
  模板：“该条款使用了祈使性词语，如‘……’[例如，‘希望’、‘完全信任’]。根据 Re Adams，这种措辞通常仅表示一种道德义务。由于没有后续的强制性指示来推翻这一点，因此意图确定性未确立。”

• Application - Sub-Branch B2 (Overriding Imperative Words Present): Identify the subsequent mandatory words (e.g., specific directions on distribution/use). Argue these clarify the overall intention as a trust, despite initial precatory language.
  适用 - 子分支 B2（存在首要的命令性词语）：确定后续的强制性词语（例如，关于分配/使用的具体指示）。论证这些词语阐明了作为信托的总体意图，尽管最初使用了祈使性语言。

• Case/Support: Cite Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury.  
  案例/支持：引用 Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury 案。
• Conclusion: Certainty of Intention is satisfied due to construction rules.
  结论：由于解释规则，意图确定性得到满足。
• Template: "Although the clause begins with the precatory phrase '...', subsequent imperative directions, such as '...', clarify the settlor's overall intention to impose a trust. Applying the construction rule as in Comiskey, the mandatory instructions override the precatory expression, satisfying Certainty of Intention."  
  模板：“尽管该条款以祈使性短语'...'开头，但随后的命令性指示，例如'...'，阐明了委托人施加信托的总体意图。应用 Comiskey 案中的解释规则，强制性指示覆盖了祈使性表达，从而满足了意图确定性。”

4. State Consequence of Failure (Intention): If intention fails, state the likely outcome.
   说明失败的后果（意图）：如果意图失败，请说明可能的结果。
   

• Template (Testamentary): "As Certainty of Intention fails, the disposition operates as an absolute gift to [Recipient Name]."  
  模板（遗嘱）：“由于意图确定性不足，该处置将作为对[收件人姓名]的绝对赠与。”
• Template (Inter Vivos): "As Certainty of Intention fails, and assuming no gift was intended, the property may be held on a resulting trust for the settlor. However, if the context suggests a gift, it will be an absolute gift."  
  模板（生前）： “由于意图确定性不足，并且假设没有赠与的意图，该财产可能以推定信托的方式为委托人持有。但是，如果上下文暗示是赠与，则它将是绝对赠与。”

III. Certainty of Subject Matter
III. 标的物确定性

1. State the Principle: The trust property must be clearly defined or identifiable (Re London Wine ). This includes certainty of the property itself AND certainty of the beneficial interests (quantum/share) (Palmer v Simmonds; Boyce v Boyce ). Must be certain from the outset.  
   说明原则：信托财产必须明确定义或可识别（Re London Wine）。这包括财产本身的确定性以及受益权益（数量/份额）的确定性（Palmer v Simmonds; Boyce v Boyce）。从一开始就必须是确定的。

• Template: "Certainty of Subject Matter requires both the trust property itself and the beneficial interests to be sufficiently certain. This certainty must exist when the trust takes effect."  
  模板：“标的物确定性要求信托财产本身和受益权益都必须充分确定。这种确定性必须在信托生效时存在。”

2. Analyse Certainty of Property Itself (Branching Logic):
   分析财产本身的确定性（分支逻辑）：
   

• Branch A: Is the description of the property vague?
  分支 A：财产描述是否含糊不清？
  

• Test/Standard: Look for terms like "bulk of," "most of," "remaining part of what is left," "reasonable legacy," subjective descriptions ("appropriate furniture").  
  测试/标准：寻找诸如“大部分”、“大部分”、“剩余部分”、“合理遗产”、主观描述（“合适的家具”）之类的术语。
• If YES (Vague):  如果是（模糊）：

• Rule/Case: Such descriptions generally fail for uncertainty (Palmer v Simmonds; Sprange v Barnard ).  
  规则/案例：此类描述通常因不确定性而失败 (Palmer v Simmonds; Sprange v Barnard )。
• Conclusion: Fails for uncertainty of property itself.
  结论：因财产本身的不确定性而失败。
• Template: "The description '...' [e.g., 'bulk of my shares'] is too vague and subjective to ascertain the trust property with certainty. Following Palmer v Simmonds, the trust fails for uncertainty of subject matter."  
  模板：“……”[例如，“我的大部分股份”]的描述过于模糊和主观，无法确定信托财产的确定性。根据 Palmer v Simmonds，该信托因标的物的不确定性而失败。

• If NO (Description seems specific): Proceed to Branch B.
  如果否（描述看起来很具体）：进入分支 B。

• Branch B: Does it involve part of a larger bulk of property?
  分支 B：它是否涉及较大批量的财产的一部分？
  

• Test/Standard: Differentiate tangible vs. intangible assets.
  测试/标准：区分有形资产与无形资产。
• If YES - Sub-Branch B1 (Tangible Assets - e.g., wine, gold bars, books):
  如果是 - 子分支 B1（有形资产 - 例如，葡萄酒、金条、书籍）：

• Rule/Case: Requires segregation or specific identification of the items forming the trust property (Re London Wine; Re Goldcorp ). Mere proportion is insufficient unless items are truly identical/fungible (rarely accepted for tangibles).  
  规则/案例：要求对构成信托财产的项目进行隔离或特定识别（Re London Wine; Re Goldcorp）。仅有比例是不够的，除非这些项目是真正相同的/可互换的（对于有形物很少被接受）。
• Application: Check if the specific items (e.g., which 6 bottles, which half of gold bars) were identified or separated.
  应用：检查特定项目（例如，哪 6 瓶酒，哪一半金条）是否被识别或分离。
• Conclusion (If Not Segregated): Fails for uncertainty of property itself.
  结论（如果未隔离）：因财产本身的不确定性而失败。
• Template: "As the [Number] [tangible items] were not segregated or identified from the larger bulk held by the settlor, the specific trust property is uncertain, and the trust fails (Re London Wine )."  
  模板：“由于[数量][有形物品]未从委托人持有的较大批量中分离或识别出来，因此特定信托财产是不确定的，并且信托失败（Re London Wine）。”
• Conclusion (If Segregated): Property itself is certain. Proceed to check beneficial interests.
  结论（如果已隔离）：财产本身是确定的。继续检查受益权益。
• Template: "Since the specific [tangible items] were clearly segregated/identified, the property itself is certain."
  模板：“由于特定的[有形物品]已被明确隔离/识别，因此财产本身是确定的。”

• If YES - Sub-Branch B2 (Intangible Assets - e.g., identical shares):
  如果“是” - 子分支 B2（无形资产 - 例如，相同的股份）：

• Rule/Case: If assets are identical and fungible (like shares of the same class), segregation is NOT required. Specifying a number or percentage is sufficient (Hunter v Moss; CA Pacific ).  
  规则/案例：如果资产是相同的且可互换的（如同一类别的股份），则不需要隔离。指定数量或百分比就足够了（Hunter v Moss; CA Pacific）。
• Application: Check if assets are intangible, identical, and number/proportion specified.
  应用：检查资产是否为无形资产、相同资产，以及是否指定了数量/比例。
• Conclusion: Property itself is certain. Proceed to check beneficial interests.
  结论：财产本身是确定的。继续检查受益权益。
• Template: "The trust concerns [Number] shares out of a larger holding of identical shares. As these are intangible, fungible assets, segregation is not required, and the subject matter is certain (Hunter v Moss )."  
  模板：“该信托涉及[数量]股来自较大数量的相同股份。由于这些是无形的、可互换的资产，因此不需要隔离，并且标的物是确定的（Hunter v Moss）。”

• If NO (Property is specific, not part of bulk): Property itself is certain. Proceed to check beneficial interests. Template: "The trust property, being [Specific Property], is clearly identified and certain."
  如果否（财产是特定的，不是批量的一部分）：财产本身是确定的。继续检查受益权益。模板：“信托财产，即[特定财产]，已被明确识别且是确定的。”

3. Analyse Certainty of Beneficial Interests (Quantum/Share) (Branching Logic):
   分析受益权益（数量/份额）的确定性（分支逻辑）：

• Branch A: Are the shares fixed or discretionary?
  分支 A：份额是固定的还是酌定的？

• If Fixed Shares (e.g., "equally," specific amounts/portions):
  如果是固定份额（例如，“平等地”、特定金额/部分）：

• Rule: Shares must be clear or objectively determinable. Vague shares ("larger portion") or failed mechanisms (Boyce v Boyce ) cause failure. Objective criteria ("reasonable income" - Re Golay ) can work.  
  规则：份额必须明确或可客观确定。 模糊的份额（“较大比例”）或失败的机制（Boyce v Boyce）会导致失败。 客观标准（“合理收入” - Re Golay）可以奏效。
• Application - Sub-Branch A1 (Clear Shares): Template: "The shares are clearly defined as [...], satisfying certainty of beneficial interest."
  应用 - 分支 A1（明确份额）：模板：“份额被明确定义为 [...]，满足受益权益的确定性。”
• Application - Sub-Branch A2 (Vague Shares/Failed Mechanism): Template: "The term '...' describing the shares is uncertain / The mechanism for determining shares failed because [...]. Therefore, the beneficial interests are uncertain (Boyce v Boyce ), and the trust fails."  
  应用 - 分支 A2（模糊份额/失败的机制）：模板：“描述份额的术语‘...’是不确定的 / 确定份额的机制失败，因为 [...]。 因此，受益权益是不确定的 (Boyce v Boyce)，并且信托失败。”
• Application - Sub-Branch A3 (Objective Criteria): Template: "The requirement for '...' [e.g., 'reasonable income'] provides an objective standard ascertainable by the court, satisfying certainty of beneficial interest (Re Golay )."  
  应用 - 分支 A3（客观标准）：模板：“对‘...’[例如，‘合理收入’] 的要求提供了可由法院确定的客观标准，满足了受益权益的确定性 (Re Golay)。”

• If Discretionary Trust (Trustees decide shares):
  如果是酌情信托（受托人决定份额）：

• Rule: Certainty of beneficial interest is generally satisfied if the trust is otherwise valid, as the trustees have discretion to determine the shares.  
  规则：如果信托在其他方面有效，则受益权益的确定性通常得到满足，因为受托人有权决定份额。
• Application Template: "As this is a discretionary trust, the trustees have the power to determine the beneficial interests, satisfying this aspect of subject matter certainty, provided the trust is valid in other respects."
  应用模板：“由于这是一个酌情信托，受托人有权决定受益权益，从而满足标的物确定性的这一方面，前提是信托在其他方面有效。”

4. State Consequence of Failure (Subject Matter):
   说明失败的后果（标的物）：

• Template (Property Itself Uncertain): "Failure of certainty of the property itself means the trust is void ab initio. The property remains with the settlor/estate."
  模板（财产本身不确定）：“财产本身确定性的缺失意味着该信托自始无效。该财产仍归委托人/遗产所有。”
• Template (Trust over Uncertain Remainder of Gift): "As the trust over the uncertain remainder fails, the initial recipient ([Recipient Name]) takes the property absolutely (Hancock v Watson )."  
  模板（对不确定剩余礼品的信托）：“由于对不确定剩余财产的信托失败，最初的接受者（[接受者姓名]）绝对地获得该财产 (Hancock v Watson )。”
• Template (Beneficial Interests Uncertain): "Failure of certainty of beneficial interests means the property is held on resulting trust for the settlor/estate (Boyce v Boyce )."  
  模板（受益权益不确定）：“受益权益确定性的缺失意味着该财产以推定信托的方式为委托人/遗产持有 (Boyce v Boyce )。”

IV. Certainty of Objects (Beneficiaries) (Introductory per W6)
IV. 对象的确定性（受益人）（W6 导论）

1. State the Principle: Trust must have identifiable beneficiaries (Morice v Bishop of Durham ). The test depends on the type of obligation (Fixed Trust - List Certainty [IRC v Broadway Cottages]; Discretionary Trust/Power - Is or Is Not Test [McPhail]; [Re Gulbenkian]).  
   说明原则：信托必须有可识别的受益人（Morice 诉达勒姆主教案）。该测试取决于义务的类型（固定信托 - 列表确定性 [IRC 诉百老汇小屋案]；酌情信托/权力 - 是或不是测试 [McPhail 案]；[Re Gulbenkian 案]）。

• Template: "Finally, Certainty of Objects requires the beneficiaries to be identifiable (Morice v Bishop of Durham ). The test depends on whether this is a fixed trust (requiring list certainty [IRC v Broadway Cottages]) or a discretionary trust/power (requiring 'is or is not' certainty [McPhail]; [Re Gulbenkian])."  
  模板：“最后，标的确定性要求受益人是可识别的（Morice 诉达勒姆主教案）。该测试取决于这是一个固定信托（需要列表确定性[IRC 诉百老汇小屋案]）还是一个酌情信托/权力（需要“是或不是”确定性[McPhail 案]；[Re Gulbenkian 案]）。”

2. Identify Obligation Type & Apply Preliminary Test (as per W6 scope): Briefly classify (Fixed/Discretionary/Power) and state the applicable test name. (Detailed analysis of conceptual/evidential/administrative uncertainty follows in later topics but acknowledging the different tests is key from W6).
   识别义务类型并应用初步测试（根据 W6 范围）：简要分类（固定/酌情/权力）并说明适用的测试名称。（概念/证据/行政不确定性的详细分析将在后面的主题中进行，但承认不同的测试是 W6 的关键）。
   
3. State Consequence of Failure (Objects):
   说明失败的后果（标的）：

• Template: "If Certainty of Objects fails, the property is held on resulting trust for the settlor/estate."  
  模板：“如果受益人确定性失败，则该财产将以归属信托的方式为设立人/遗产持有。”

V. Overall Conclusion  V. 总体结论

Summarise the validity of each disposition based on the analysis of the three certainties. State clearly what happens to the property for each valid or invalid trust.
根据对三个确定性的分析，总结每项财产处置的有效性。清楚地说明对于每个有效或无效信托，财产会如何处理。

Sample Application Structure (Example for Clause (a) of previous question):
示例申请结构（前一个问题条款 (a) 的示例）：

1. Certainty of Intention: "The phrase 'on trust for him' clearly indicates an intention to create a trust. Certainty of Intention is satisfied."
   意图确定性：“‘为他信托’这一短语清楚地表明了设立信托的意图。意图确定性已得到满足。”
2. Certainty of Subject Matter:
   标的物确定性：

• Property Itself: "The subject matter is 'half of all my gold bars'. Gold bars are tangible chattels. They are held in bulk and unsegregated. Following Re London Wine and Re Goldcorp, specifying a proportion ('half') of unsegregated tangible assets generally fails to identify the specific trust property unless the items are fungible. As individual gold bars are typically not treated as fungible in this context, the property itself is uncertain."  
  财产本身：“标的物是‘我所有金条的一半’。金条是有形动产。它们以散装且未分离的方式持有。根据 Re London Wine 和 Re Goldcorp 案例，指定未分离的有形资产的比例（‘一半’）通常无法确定具体的信托财产，除非这些物品是可互换的。由于单个金条在这种情况下通常不被视为可互换，因此财产本身是不确定的。”
• Beneficial Interest: "As the property itself is uncertain, the certainty of beneficial interest (Alfred getting the whole benefit of the 'half') is irrelevant."
  受益权益：“由于财产本身是不确定的，因此受益权益的确定性（Alfred 获得‘一半’的全部利益）是无关紧要的。”
• Consequence: "The trust fails for uncertainty of subject matter (property itself). The gold bars remain part of Henry's estate."
  后果：“由于标的（财产本身）不确定，信托失败。金条仍然是亨利遗产的一部分。”

3. Certainty of Objects: "The beneficiary, Alfred, is clearly identified. Certainty of Objects is satisfied."
   对象的确定性：“受益人阿尔弗雷德已被明确指明。对象的确定性得到满足。”
4. Conclusion for Clause (a): "Although intention and objects are certain, the trust over the gold bars fails due to uncertainty of subject matter (the property itself)."
   条款（a）的结论：“尽管意图和对象是确定的，但由于标的（财产本身）不确定，关于金条的信托失败。”