Equity W8解题思路

W8 Charity 解题思路

Overall Approach: For each provision in a will or trust instrument that might be charitable, follow these steps systematically.
总体方法：对于遗嘱或信托文件中可能具有慈善性质的每一项条款，系统地遵循以下步骤。

STEP 1: Identify the Provision & Initial Trust Requirements
第一步：确定条款和初始信托要求

Clearly state the provision being analyzed (e.g., "Clause X leaves $Y to Trustees for purpose Z").
清楚地陈述正在分析的条款（例如，“X 条款将 Y 美元留给受托人用于 Z 目的”）。
Briefly confirm Certainty of Intention (Are mandatory words like "trustees," "to be applied for," "shall" used, indicating a binding obligation?) and Certainty of Subject Matter (Is the trust property clearly defined, e.g., specific sum, residue?).
简要确认意图确定性（是否使用了“受托人”、“用于”、“应”等强制性词语，表明具有约束力？）以及标的确定性（信托财产是否明确定义，例如，特定金额、剩余财产？）。

Template: "The provision demonstrates certainty of intention through the use of [mention specific words] and certainty of subject matter, being [$Y / the residue]."
模板：“该条款通过使用[提及特定词语]体现了意图的确定性，以及标的的确定性，即[Y 美元/剩余财产]。”

STEP 2: Assess the Beneficiary Principle
第二步：评估受益人原则

Identify the Issue: Does the provision lack clearly identifiable human beneficiaries or legal persons (like a company) who can enforce the trust? Is it instead for a purpose?.
确定问题：该条款是否缺乏可以执行信托的、清晰可辨认的人类受益人或法人（如公司）？或者它是否是为了某个目的？

If Yes (Purpose Trust): State the general rule.
如果是（目的信托）：说明一般规则。

Template: "This provision appears to establish a trust for a purpose, namely [State Purpose]. As there are no ascertainable human or legal person beneficiaries to enforce the trust, it prima facie infringes the beneficiary principle established in Morice v Bishop of Durham and would normally be void."
模板：“此条款似乎是为了某个目的而设立信托，即[说明目的]。由于没有可确定的自然人或法人受益人来执行信托，因此它表面上违反了 Morice v Bishop of Durham 中确立的受益人原则，并且通常是无效的。”

If No (Clear Beneficiaries): Analyze as a private trust (outside W8 scope, usually).
如果否（明确的受益人）：作为私人信托进行分析（超出 W8 范围，通常）。

STEP 3: Consider the Charitable Trust Exception
第 3 步：考虑慈善信托例外

Introduce Charity: State that the main exception to the beneficiary principle (and perpetuity rules) is for charitable trusts.
介绍慈善：声明受益人原则（和永久规则）的主要例外是慈善信托。
State Requirements: List the three core requirements for a trust to be charitable in Hong Kong:
说明要求：列出在香港设立慈善信托的三个核心要求：

Must have a Charitable Purpose (within the spirit of the 1601 Preamble / Pemsel heads).
必须具有慈善目的（在 1601 年序言/Pemsel 条款的精神内）。
Must provide Public Benefit.
必须提供公众利益。
Must be Wholly and Exclusively Charitable.
必须完全且仅为慈善目的。

Template: "However, the trust may be valid if it qualifies as a charitable trust. To do so, it must satisfy three requirements: possess a recognized charitable purpose, provide public benefit, and be exclusively charitable." Analyze each requirement below.
模板：“但是，如果该信托符合慈善信托的条件，则该信托可能是有效的。为此，它必须满足三个要求：具有公认的慈善目的，提供公众利益，并且完全是为了慈善目的。” 分析以下每个要求。

STEP 3.1: Requirement 1 - Charitable Purpose (Pemsel Heads)
步骤 3.1：要求 1 - 慈善目的（彭塞尔原则）

Identify Potential Head(s): Which of the four Pemsel heads does the purpose seem to fit?.
确定潜在类别：该目的似乎符合四个 Pemsel 类别中的哪一个？

Head 1: Relief of Poverty
类别 1：救济贫困
Head 2: Advancement of Education
类别 2：促进教育
Head 3: Advancement of Religion
第三类：推进宗教
Head 4: Other Purposes Beneficial to the Community
第四项：其他有益于社区的目的

Analyze Fit within Head(s) - BRANCHING ANALYSIS:
分析是否符合该项（或多项）——分支分析：

IF potential Head 1 (Poverty):
如果可能符合第一项（扶贫）：

Test: Does the purpose genuinely aim to relieve poverty (defined relatively, not destitution - Re Coulthurst)? Does the wording target the 'poor', 'needy', 'of limited means' etc.?.
测试：该目的是否真正旨在缓解贫困（相对定义，而非赤贫——Re Coulthurst）？措辞是否针对“穷人”、“ нуждающиеся”、“经济能力有限”等？
Compare: Is it restricted to the poor (likely valid) or available to all regardless of means (likely fails - Re Gwyon)? Does "working class" equate to poor (usually no - Re Sanders')?
比较：它是否仅限于穷人（可能有效），还是所有人都可以使用，而无需考虑经济状况（可能无效 - Re Gwyon）？ “工人阶级”是否等同于穷人（通常不是 - Re Sanders'）？
Conclusion Template: "The purpose of [State Purpose] appears aimed at the relief of poverty. Poverty is defined relatively (Re Coulthurst). The wording [‘targets’/‘does not target’] those in need specifically. It [resembles/differs from] Re Gwyon. Therefore, it likely [satisfies/fails] the poverty head."
结论模板：“[说明目的]的目的似乎旨在救济贫困。贫困是相对定义的 (Re Coulthurst)。措辞[‘针对’/‘不针对’]那些有特定需要的人。它[类似于/不同于] Re Gwyon。因此，它可能[满足/未满足]贫困类别。”

IF potential Head 2 (Education):
如果是潜在的第二类（教育）：

Test: Does it involve instruction, training, research, culture, arts etc.? (IRC v McMullen). Is it genuinely educational and useful? (Not useless propaganda - Re Shaw; sufficient quality/merit - Re Pinion). If research, is it useful and for dissemination? (Re Hopkins).
测试：它是否涉及指导、培训、研究、文化、艺术等？ (IRC v McMullen)。它是否具有真正的教育意义和实用性？（不是无用的宣传 - Re Shaw；具有足够的质量/价值 - Re Pinion）。如果是研究，它是否有用且用于传播？ (Re Hopkins)。
Sport: Is sport linked to an educational institution? (Yes = potentially valid - IRC v McMullen). Is it for sport promotion generally? (No = invalid - Re Nottage).
体育：体育是否与教育机构相关？（是 = 可能有效 - IRC v McMullen）。它是否普遍用于体育推广？（否 = 无效 - Re Nottage）。
Conclusion Template: "The purpose of [State Purpose] relates to the advancement of education. It involves [teaching/research/culture...]. It appears [useful/lacks value/has sufficient merit based on X case]. Therefore, it likely [satisfies/fails] the education head."
结论模板：“[陈述目的] 的目的是促进教育。它涉及 [教学/研究/文化...]。它看起来 [有用/缺乏价值/基于 X 案例具有足够的优点]。因此，它可能 [满足/不满足] 教育的目的。”

IF potential Head 3 (Religion):
如果是潜在的目的 3（宗教）：

Test: Does it advance religion (belief in God/divine generally required at common law - Bowman)? Support services, clergy, places of worship? Is worship public (likely valid - Neville Estates) or private/contemplative (likely fails - Gilmour v Coats)?
测试：它是否促进宗教（普通法一般要求信仰上帝/神灵 - Bowman）？支持服务、神职人员、礼拜场所？礼拜是公开的（可能有效 - Neville Estates）还是私人的/沉思的（可能无效 - Gilmour v Coats）？
HK Context: Ancestor worship usually private/not charitable.
香港背景：祭祖通常是私人的/非慈善的。
Conclusion Template: "The purpose of [State Purpose] relates to the advancement of religion. It involves [promoting belief/public worship/supporting clergy...]. This appears [publicly accessible/purely private based on X case]. Therefore, it likely [satisfies/fails] the religion head."
结论模板：“[说明目的]的目的是为了促进宗教发展。它涉及[促进信仰/公开敬拜/支持神职人员...]。根据 X 案例，这似乎是[公开可访问的/纯粹私人的]。因此，它可能[满足/未能满足]宗教类别。”

IF potential Head 4 (Other Purposes):
如果是潜在的第四类（其他目的）：

Test: Is the purpose beneficial to the community and analogous to purposes in the 1601 Preamble (its 'spirit and intendment')?. Consider health, disaster relief, environment, heritage, animal welfare (Re Wedgewood) etc.
测试：该目的对社区是否有益，并且与 1601 年序言中的目的（即“精神和意图”）类似？考虑健康、救灾、环境、遗产、动物福利（Re Wedgewood）等。
HK Context: "Social welfare" may qualify (HSBC v Islamic CF).
香港语境：“社会福利”可能符合资格 (汇丰银行诉伊斯兰慈善基金).
Conclusion Template: "The purpose of [State Purpose] does not fit Heads 1-3 but may be an 'other purpose beneficial to the community'. It aims to [benefit health/environment/animals...], which is [analogous/not analogous] to the Preamble's spirit (Pemsel). Therefore, it likely [satisfies/fails] this head."
结论模板：“[陈述目的]的目的不符合第 1-3 项，但可能是‘其他有益于社区的目的’。其旨在[有益于健康/环境/动物...]，这与《前言》的精神[类似/不类似]（彭塞尔）。因此，它可能[满足/不满足]此项要求。”

IF Purpose Fails All Heads: Conclude it lacks a charitable purpose and is void.
如果目的不符合所有类别：得出结论，该目的缺乏慈善目的，因此无效。

STEP 3.2: Requirement 2 - Public Benefit
步骤 3.2：要求 2 - 公众利益

State Requirement: Must benefit the public or a sufficient section (Re Compton).
州要求：必须使公众或足够的部分受益 (Re Compton)。
Analyze Public Benefit - BRANCHING ANALYSIS (CRITICAL - Depends on Head identified above):
分析公共利益 - 分支分析（关键 - 取决于上面确定的类别）：

IF Head 1 (Poverty):
如果属于第一类（扶贫）：

Apply Exception: State the poverty exception: personal nexus test does NOT apply; public benefit is presumed/inferred (Dingle v Turner).
应用例外情况：说明扶贫例外情况：个人联系测试不适用；推定/推断存在公共利益 (Dingle v Turner)。
Conclusion Template: "As the purpose falls under the relief of poverty, the strict public benefit test, particularly the personal nexus rule from Oppenheim, does not apply (Dingle v Turner). Public benefit is presumed. This requirement is satisfied."
结论模板：由于该目的属于扶贫，因此严格的公共利益测试，特别是来自奥本海姆的个人联系规则不适用（丁格尔诉特纳）。推定存在公共利益。此项要求已满足。

IF Head 2 (Education), Head 3 (Religion), or Head 4 (Other Purposes):
如果属于第 2 类（教育）、第 3 类（宗教）或第 4 类（其他目的）：

Apply Oppenheim Personal Nexus Test:.
适用奥本海默个人关系检验标准：

(i) Numerically Negligible? (Usually not the deciding factor).
(i) 在数量上可以忽略不计吗？（通常不是决定性因素）。
(ii) Personal Nexus? Is the class of potential beneficiaries defined by relationship to a specific person or employer? (e.g., "children of employees of X Ltd," "my relatives").
(二) 个人联系？潜在受益人类别是否通过与特定个人或雇主的关系来界定？(例如，“X 有限公司的雇员子女”，“我的亲属”)。

IF YES (Personal Nexus Exists): The trust fails the public benefit test (Oppenheim). Rationale: Public funds (tax relief) shouldn't subsidise private benefits. Crucial: Even if there's a poverty criterion within an education trust (e.g., "for poor children of employees"), the personal nexus still invalidates it under the education head [MCQ 1 analysis].
如果“是”（存在个人联系）：该信托未能通过公共利益测试 (Oppenheim)。理由：公共资金（税收减免）不应补贴私人利益。关键：即使教育信托中存在贫困标准（例如，“为贫困的雇员子女”），个人联系仍然会使该信托在教育类别下无效 [MCQ 1 分析]。

Conclusion Template (Failure): "This purpose falls under Head [2/3/4], where the Oppenheim public benefit test applies strictly. The beneficiaries are defined by their personal link to [Employer/Family], creating a personal nexus. This prevents them being a 'section of the public' for charitable purposes (Oppenheim). The requirement is not satisfied."
结论模板（失败）：“此目的属于第[2/3/4]项，其中 Oppenheim 公共利益测试适用严格标准。受益人通过他们与[雇主/家庭]的个人联系来界定，从而产生个人联系。这使得他们不能为了慈善目的而成为“公众的一部分”(Oppenheim)。该要求未得到满足。”

IF NO (Impersonal Link, e.g., Locality, Shared Characteristic): The personal nexus test is likely satisfied. BUT consider further issues:
如果“否”（非个人联系，例如，地点、共同特征）：个人联系测试可能已得到满足。但请进一步考虑以下问题：

Restrictions within Impersonal Class: Is it a class within a class (e.g., "Welsh people in London" - Williams)? Is there a further personal restriction within a locality (e.g., "clan descendants in the village" - Re Ho Cheung Shi)? If yes -> may fail.
不具名类别中的限制：它是否是类别中的一个类别（例如，“在伦敦的威尔士人” - Williams）？是否存在区域内的进一步个人限制（例如，“村里的氏族后裔” - Re Ho Cheung Shi）？如果存在 -> 可能失败。
Charging Fees: Are fees charged? If yes, are they excessive, excluding the intended public? (ICLR). If yes -> may fail.
收取费用：是否收取费用？如果是，费用是否过高，排除了预期的公众？（ICLR）。如果存在 -> 可能失败。
Head 4 Geographic Limit (HK): Is the benefit for the HK community? (IRD S.88 rule). If no -> may fail for tax exemption / potentially validity.
四级标题地理范围（香港）：受益对象是否为香港社群？（税务局第 88 条规则）。如果不是 -> 可能无法获得税务豁免/可能影响有效性。
Head 3 Public Interaction: Is religious practice public/accessible (Neville Estates) or purely private (Gilmour)? Private -> fails.
第三类：公众互动：宗教活动是公开/可参与的（内维尔产业案）还是纯粹私人的（吉尔摩案）？私人 -> 不通过。
Head 4 Public Access: Does it exclude the public (Re Grove-Grady)? Excludes -> fails.
第四类：公众参与：是否排斥公众参与（里格罗夫-格雷迪案）？排斥 -> 不通过。
Conclusion Template (Success): "This purpose falls under Head [2/3/4], requiring public benefit under Oppenheim. The class is defined by [Impersonal Factor], avoiding a personal nexus. [Address any further issues like locality, charging, access]. Subject to [any remaining concerns], the public benefit requirement appears satisfied."
结论模板（成功）：“此目的属于第[2/3/4]类，根据奥本海姆案的要求，需要具有公共利益。该群体由[非个人因素]定义，避免了个人联系。[解决任何其他问题，如地域性、收费、参与]。在[任何剩余担忧]的前提下，公共利益要求似乎已得到满足。”

STEP 3.3: Requirement 3 - Exclusively Charitable Purpose
第 3.3 步：要求 3 - 完全慈善目的

State Rule: Trust must be wholly and exclusively charitable. Funds cannot be applied to non-charitable purposes.
州法律规定：信托必须完全且专门用于慈善目的。资金不得用于非慈善目的。
Analyze Potential Issues - BRANCHING ANALYSIS:
分析潜在问题 - 分支分析：

IF Ambiguous Wording ("Or"/"And"):
如果措辞含糊不清（“或”/“和”）：

Check "Or": Does it link charitable and possibly non-charitable purposes (e.g., "charitable or benevolent"; "charitable or other purposes associated with...")? If yes -> likely VOID (Chichester Diocesan Fund). The potential non-charitable option poisons the trust [MCQ 7 analysis].
检查“或”：它是否连接了慈善目的和可能非慈善目的（例如，“慈善或慈善性质的”；“慈善或与...相关的其他目的”）？如果是 -> 可能无效（奇切斯特教区基金）。潜在的非慈善选项会毒害信托[MCQ 7 分析]。
Check "And": Usually joins requirements, making it safer (e.g., "charitable and benevolent" means must be charitable) (Re Best). Context check needed (AG Bahamas).
检查“且 (And) ”：通常连接各项要求，使其更安全（例如，“慈善且仁慈”表示必须是慈善的）(Re Best)。需要进行语境检查 (AG Bahamas)。
Conclusion Template: "The exclusivity requirement demands funds only be used for charity. The use of ['or'/'and'] here is [problematic/likely acceptable]. ['Or'] allows potential application to [non-charitable purpose], likely voiding the trust (Chichester). ['And'] requires purposes be charitable, likely satisfying exclusivity (Re Best)."
结论模板：“排他性要求规定资金只能用于慈善。此处使用['或'/'且']是[有问题的/可能可以接受的]。['或']允许潜在地应用于[非慈善目的]，可能导致信托无效 (Chichester)。['且']要求目的是慈善的，可能满足排他性 (Re Best)。”

IF Political Purpose: 如属政治目的：

Test: Is a main or direct purpose to change laws or government policy? (National Anti-Vivisection; McGovern).
测试：主要或直接目的是否为改变法律或政府政策？(National Anti-Vivisection; McGovern)。
If Yes: Purpose is political and non-charitable. Consider Severance: Can this political purpose/grant be clearly separated from other valid charitable purposes in the trust?. If yes, political part fails, rest may survive. If no (intertwined or sole purpose), whole trust fails [MCQ 9 analysis].
如果可以：目的为政治性，不属于慈善目的。考虑分割：此政治目的/拨款是否能与信托中其他有效的慈善目的明确分离？如果可以，政治部分无效，其余部分可能存续。如果不能（相互交织或唯一目的），则整个信托无效[MCQ 9 分析]。
Conclusion Template: "The purpose of [advocating law change] appears political (McGovern). This non-charitable purpose [taints the entire trust / may potentially be severed from the valid purpose of X]. If severable, the trust for X may proceed, but the political gift fails. If not severable, the entire trust fails exclusivity."
结论模板：“[倡导法律变更] 的目的似乎具有政治性 (McGovern)。这种非慈善目的[玷污了整个信托 / 可能会与 X 的有效目的分离]。如果可以分离，则 X 的信托可以继续进行，但政治捐赠失败。如果不可分离，则整个信托因排他性而失败。”

IF Potential Private Benefit:
如果存在潜在的私人利益：

Test: Does the mechanism involve non-incidental benefit to private individuals or for-profit entities (e.g., funding research via related company that gains advantage)? [MCQ 5 analysis].
测试：该机制是否涉及对私人或营利性实体的非附带利益（例如，通过相关公司获得优势的资金研究）？[MCQ 5 分析]。
If Yes: Likely breaches exclusivity, even if ultimate goal seems charitable.
如果是：可能违反排他性，即使最终目标看起来是慈善的。
Conclusion Template: "While the overall aim of [X] might seem charitable, channeling funds through/providing benefit to [Private Entity/Person] raises concerns about private benefit, potentially breaching the exclusivity requirement."
结论模板：“虽然[X]的总体目标可能看似慈善，但通过[私人实体/个人]输送资金/提供利益会引起对私人利益的担忧，可能违反排他性要求。”

IF Ancillary Non-Charitable Purpose:
如果附带的非慈善目的：

Test: Is there a minor non-charitable element (e.g., trustee dinner, staff housing) strictly subordinate and incidental to achieving the main charitable aim? (Re Coxen).
测试：是否存在次要的非慈善成分（例如，受托人晚餐、员工住房）严格服从于且附属于实现主要慈善目标？（Re Coxen）。
If Yes: Permissible, doesn't breach exclusivity.
如果是：允许，不违反排他性。
Conclusion Template: "The provision for [minor benefit] appears to be merely ancillary to the main charitable purpose of [Y], similar to Re Coxen. It does not prevent the trust from being exclusively charitable."
结论模板：“为[次要利益]所作的规定似乎仅仅是[Y]的主要慈善目的的辅助，类似于 Re Coxen。它并不妨碍该信托完全是慈善性质的。”

IF Gift to Office Holder:
如果赠与对象是职位持有者：

Test: Is the gift clearly restricted to the charitable duties of the office? (Re Simson vs. Re Farley). "For his work" might be too broad.
测试：该赠与是否明确限定于该职位所承担的慈善义务？（Re Simson vs. Re Farley）。“为了他的工作”可能过于宽泛。
Conclusion Template: "The gift to [Office Holder] 'for [Purpose stated]' must be assessed. If restricted to charitable duties, it's valid. If it could cover non-charitable aspects of their work (Re Farley), it fails exclusivity."
结论模板：“对[职位持有者]‘为了[所述目的]’的赠与必须进行评估。如果限定于慈善义务，则有效。如果它可能涵盖其工作的非慈善方面（Re Farley），则不符合排他性要求。”

IF No Exclusivity Issues Found:
如果未发现排他性问题：

Conclusion Template: "The purpose appears wholly and exclusively charitable, with no indication that funds could be applied to non-charitable objects."
结论模板：“该目的看来完全且仅为慈善目的，没有迹象表明资金可能被用于非慈善目的。”

STEP 4: Overall Conclusion on Validity
第四步：关于有效性的总体结论

Synthesize: Briefly recap findings on the three requirements (Purpose, Public Benefit, Exclusivity).
综合：简要回顾关于三个要求的调查结果（目的、公共利益、排他性）。
Template (Valid): "Based on the analysis above, the purpose of [X] is a recognized charitable purpose under the head of [Y], it satisfies the public benefit requirement [because...], and appears exclusively charitable. Therefore, the trust is likely a valid charitable trust."
模板（有效）：“基于以上分析，[X]的目的属于[Y]项下公认的慈善目的，它满足公众利益的要求[因为...]，并且似乎完全是慈善性质的。因此，该信托很可能是一个有效的慈善信托。”
Template (Invalid): "Although the purpose of [X] may seem [charitable/beneficial], the trust likely fails because it [lacks a recognized charitable purpose / fails the public benefit test due to personal nexus per Oppenheim / is not exclusively charitable due to political/private benefit/'or' wording]. Therefore, the trust is likely void." (Consider severance if only part fails).
模板（无效）：“尽管[X]的目的可能看起来[慈善/有益]，但该信托很可能失败，因为它[缺乏公认的慈善目的 / 因 Oppenheim 案中的个人联系而未能通过公众利益测试 / 由于政治/私人利益/'或'措辞而并非完全是慈善性质的]。因此，该信托很可能无效。”（如果只有部分失败，请考虑分割）。

STEP 5: Cy-près Application (ONLY IF the trust was initially valid BUT has now failed)
第五步：公益目的更改适用原则（仅当信托最初有效但现在已失效时）

Identify Need: Does the problem state the intended charity/purpose is now impossible/impracticable (e.g., charity closed, purpose achieved/obsolete)?
确定需求：问题是否说明了预期的慈善机构/目的现在是不可能/不切实际的（例如，慈善机构已关闭，目的已实现/过时）？
State Doctrine: Introduce cy-près - court can apply funds to similar charitable purposes.
国家理论：介绍近似原则 (cy-près) - 法院可以将资金用于类似的慈善目的。
Check Conditions: Was trust initially valid? Is it now impossible/impracticable? Is there General Charitable Intent (GCI)?.
检查条件：信托最初是否有效？现在是否不可能/不可行？是否存在一般慈善意图（GCI）？
Analyze GCI - BRANCHING ANALYSIS (Key Factor: Timing of Failure & Body Type):
分析 GCI - 分支分析（关键因素：失败时机和机构类型）：

IF Subsequent Failure (Post-Death):
如果是后续失败（死后）：

Rule: GCI is ALWAYS PRESUMED. Cy-près applies.
规则：始终推定存在 GCI。适用更改信托条款原则。
Conclusion Template: "Since the impossibility arose after the testator's death (subsequent failure), general charitable intent is presumed. The court can apply the funds cy-près to charities with similar objectives, such as [Suggest plausible alternative]."
结论模板：“由于不可能情况发生在立遗嘱人去世之后（后续失败），一般慈善意图会被推定。法院可以适用更改受益原则，将资金用于具有类似目标的慈善机构，例如[建议可行的替代方案]。”

IF Initial Failure (Pre-Death):
如果是初始失败（死亡前）：

Scenario 1: Charity Never Existed: GCI presumed. Cy-près applies.
情形 1：慈善机构从未存在：推定存在一般慈善意图。适用更改受益原则。

Conclusion Template: "As the named charity never existed, the testator could not have intended to benefit that specific entity. General charitable intent is presumed, and cy-près applies."
结论模板：“由于指定的慈善机构从未存在，立遗嘱人不可能有意使该特定实体受益。一般慈善意图会被推定，并适用更改受益原则。”

Scenario 2: Charity Existed but Ceased Pre-Death:
情景 2：慈善机构存在但于死前停止运作：

IF Amalgamated: Funds usually follow successor. (Cy-près may not be needed).
如果是合并：资金通常会跟随继任者。（可能不需要近似原则）。
IF Was Unincorporated Association: Gift likely for purposes. GCI for purpose presumed. Cy-près likely applies [MCQ 8].
如果是未注册协会：赠与很可能是为了其宗旨。通常推定具有普遍慈善意图。近似原则可能适用[MCQ 8]。

Conclusion Template: "Although failure was initial, the gift was to an unincorporated association, likely intended for its charitable purposes. GCI for the purpose is presumed, allowing cy-près application."
结论模板：“尽管最初失败，但这份赠与是给一个未注册协会的，很可能是为了其慈善目的。通常推定具有普遍慈善意图，允许适用近似原则。”

IF Was Incorporated Body: Danger Zone. Presumption may be a gift to the specific corporation. GCI NOT presumed. Gift likely lapses unless clear evidence proves GCI beyond that specific body [MCQ 11].
如果是注册法人团体：危险区域。推定可能是赠与给特定的公司。不推定具有普遍慈善意图。除非有明确证据表明超越该特定团体的普遍慈善意图，否则赠与很可能失效[MCQ 11]。

Conclusion Template (Failure Likely): "This is an initial failure of a gift to a named, incorporated charity that ceased pre-death. There is a presumption the gift was intended for that specific entity. Without clear evidence of a wider, general charitable intent, the gift likely lapses and cy-près cannot be applied."
结论模板（可能失败）：“这是对一家已命名的、已注册的慈善机构的初始失败捐赠，该慈善机构在去世前已停止运作。存在一种推定，即该捐赠旨在用于该特定实体。如果没有更广泛、更普遍的慈善意图的明确证据，该捐赠可能会失效，并且不能适用近似原则。”
Conclusion Template (Success Possible): "This is an initial failure... [as above]. However, if evidence exists suggesting the testator had a broader intent to support [type of charitable work] generally, and merely chose [Defunct Charity] as a vehicle, then GCI might be established, allowing cy-près."
结论模板（可能成功）：“这是一个初始失败... [同上]。但是，如果存在证据表明立遗嘱人有更广泛的意图来支持[慈善工作类型]，并且仅仅选择[已失效的慈善机构]作为载体，那么可能会确立普遍慈善意图，从而允许适用近似原则。”