W9 Constitution of Trusts and Perfection of Gifts 解题思路
W9 信托的设立与赠与的完善 解题思路

A. W9 Specific Analysis Framework (Branching Logic & Templates)
A. W9 具体分析框架（分支逻辑和模板）

(Apply this to EACH property/transaction in the problem)
（将此应用于问题中的每个财产/交易）

STEP 1: Initial Identification
步骤 1：初步识别

• Instruction: Pinpoint the property, parties, and the specific legal objective.
  说明：确定财产、当事人以及具体的法律目标。
• Template:  模板：
   "Analysis concerns the [Property Name]. The relevant parties are [Donor/Settlor], [Donee/Beneficiary], and potentially [Trustee]. The objective appears to be a(n) [Outright Gift / Transfer on Trust / Self-Declaration of Trust / Donatio Mortis Causa (DMC) / Release of Debt]."
  "分析涉及[财产名称]。相关方为[捐赠人/委托人]、[受赠人/受益人]，以及可能的[受托人]。目标似乎是[直接赠与/信托转让/自我声明信托/临终赠与 (DMC) /债务解除]。"

STEP 2: Was a Self-Declaration of Trust Intended and Valid?
第二步：是否意图且有效进行自我声明信托？

• Test: Did the owner clearly express an immediate intention to hold that specific property on trust for the beneficiary, undertaking trustee duties? Check formalities (e.g., writing for land - CPO s.5(1)(b)).
  测试：所有者是否清晰地表达了立即以信托方式为受益人持有该特定财产的意图，并承担受托人职责？检查手续是否完备（例如，土地需书面形式——《财产条例》第 5(1)(b)条）。
• Scenario Check: Look for words like "I now hold... on trust" (Paul v Constance approach). Contrast with failed gift attempts or future intentions (Jones v Lock; Richards v Delbridge).
  情境检查：寻找类似“我现在以信托方式持有……”的措辞（Paul v Constance 方法）。与失败的赠与尝试或未来意图形成对比（Jones v Lock；Richards v Delbridge）。
• IF YES (Valid Self-Declaration):
  如果是（有效的自我声明）：

• Template Conclusion:  模板结论：
   "The evidence suggests [Settlor] intended to declare themselves trustee (Method 3). Their words/actions [Detail evidence] manifest this intent. Assuming compliance with formalities for [Property Type], the trust was constituted upon declaration, as legal title was already vested in the settlor/trustee. Thus, [Beneficiary] acquired an equitable interest."
  “证据表明[委托人]打算声明自己为受托人（方法 3）。他们的言语/行为[详细证据]表明了这一意图。假设[财产类型]符合手续规定，则信托在声明时成立，因为合法所有权已经归属于委托人/受托人。因此，[受益人]获得了衡平法上的权益。”

• IF NO (Self-Declaration Not Intended/Valid):
  如果没有（不打算/无效的自我声明）：

• Template Conclusion:  模板结论：
   "The facts indicate an intended [Outright Gift / Transfer on Trust] rather than a self-declaration. Equity will not convert a failed gift/transfer into a self-declared trust (Milroy v Lord; Jones v Lock; Richards v Delbridge). Analysis must therefore proceed based on the requirements for perfecting the intended [Gift / Transfer on Trust]."
  "事实表明，意图是[直接赠与/信托转让]，而不是自我声明。衡平法不会将失败的赠与/转让转化为自我声明的信托（Milroy v Lord; Jones v Lock; Richards v Delbridge）。因此，分析必须基于完善预期[赠与/信托转让]的要求进行。"

• (Proceed to Step 3)  （进入第 3 步）

STEP 3: If Gift or Transfer on Trust Intended: Was the Transfer Completed? (Milroy v Lord - "Everything Necessary")
第 3 步：如果打算赠与或信托转让：转让是否完成？（Milroy v Lord - "一切必要事项"）

• Test: Did the donor/settlor complete every step legally necessary for them to take to transfer title, according to the property type? (Milroy v Lord).
  测试：根据财产类型，捐赠人/委托人是否已完成所有必要的法律步骤以转移所有权？（米尔罗伊诉洛德案）。
• Formalities Check: What are the requirements for this specific property?
  形式审查：此特定财产的要求是什么？

• Land: Deed (CPO s.4) + Registration.
  土地：契据（《财产条例》第 4 条）+ 登记。
• Shares: Executed transfer form + Delivery of form & certificate + Registration. Director approval may be needed.
  股份：已签署的转让表格 + 交付表格和证书 + 登记。可能需要董事批准。
• Chattels: Delivery with intent OR Deed of Gift.
  动产：具有意图的交付或赠与契约。
• Chose in action (debt/bank account): Depends on nature, may require notice/specific method.
  诉讼标的（债务/银行账户）：取决于性质，可能需要通知/特定方法。

• Scenario Check: Compare actions taken with required formalities. Were all steps within the donor's control completed? (cf Re Fry).
  情形核查：将已采取的行动与要求的形式进行比较。捐赠者控制范围内的所有步骤都已完成了吗？（参见 Re Fry）。
• IF YES (Necessary Steps Completed):
  如果是（必要步骤已完成）：

• Template Conclusion:  模板结论：
   "[Donor/Settlor] completed all legally necessary steps for transferring [Property Type], including [Key completed steps]. Accordingly, under Milroy v Lord, legal title vested in [Donee/Trustee], and the [gift was perfected / trust was constituted]."
  "[赠与人/委托人]完成了转移[财产类型]的所有法律上必要的步骤，包括[已完成的关键步骤]。因此，根据*米尔罗伊诉劳德案*，合法所有权已归属于[受赠人/受托人]，并且[赠与已完成/信托已成立]。"

• IF NO (Necessary Steps Incomplete):
  如果没有（必要步骤未完成）：

• Template Conclusion:  模板结论：
   "[Donor/Settlor] failed to complete the necessary step of [*Specify missing necessary step(s) required of them]. Applying the strict rule in Milroy v Lord, they did not do everything necessary. Consequently, the intended [gift is imperfect / trust is unconstituted] under this primary test."
  "[赠与人/委托人]未能完成必要的步骤[*指明他们所缺少的必要步骤]。应用*米尔罗伊诉劳德案*中的严格规则，他们没有做所有必要的事情。因此，根据这项主要测试，预期的[赠与不完善/信托未成立]。"

• (Proceed to Step 4)  （进入步骤 4）

STEP 4: If Milroy Failed: Does Re Rose Apply? ("Everything in Donor's Power")
第 4 步：如果米尔罗伊案失败：*罗斯案*(Re Rose)是否适用？（“捐赠人权力范围内的一切”）

• Test: Did the donor/settlor do everything they possibly could to transfer the property, putting it beyond their recall and making completion dependent solely on a third party's actions? (Re Rose).
  测试：捐赠人/委托人是否已尽其所能转移财产，使其无法撤回，并且完成完全取决于第三方的行为？（Re Rose 案）。
• Scenario Check: Were all necessary documents executed and delivered to the donee/trustee/company? (Re Rose; Mascall v Mascall). Was the only outstanding action required from someone else?
  情景检查：所有必要的文件是否已签署并交付给受赠人/受托人/公司？（Re Rose 案；Mascall v Mascall 案）。唯一未完成的行动是否需要他人完成？
• IF YES (Re Rose Applies):
  如果是（适用 Re Rose 案）：

• Template Conclusion:  模板结论：
   "Although legal title had not passed, Re Rose may apply. By [Detailing actions], [Donor/Settlor] did everything within their power. Completion depended solely on [Third Party action]. Equity therefore likely treats the [gift as perfected / trust as constituted] from that point, with [Donor/Settlor] holding the legal title on constructive trust."  
  "尽管法定所有权尚未转移，但可能适用 Re Rose 案。通过[详细说明行动]，[捐赠人/委托人]已尽其所能。完成完全取决于[第三方行动]。因此，衡平法很可能从那时起将[赠与视为已完成/信托视为已设立]，[捐赠人/委托人]以推定信托持有法定所有权。"

• IF NO (Re Rose Does Not Apply):
  如果没有（Re Rose 原则不适用）：

• Template Conclusion:  模板结论：
   "The Re Rose principle requires the transfer to be beyond the donor/settlor's control. Here, because [***Reason, e.g., 'they retained the executed documents'***], they had not yet done everything in their power. Re Rose does not assist."
  "Re Rose 原则要求转移超出赠与人/委托人的控制。在这里，因为[***原因，例如，“他们保留了已签署的文件”***]，他们尚未尽其所能。Re Rose 原则不提供帮助。"

• (Proceed to Step 5)  （进入第 5 步）

STEP 5: If Milroy & Re Rose Failed: Does Pennington v Waine Apply? (Unconscionability)
第五步：如果米尔罗伊案和罗斯案均不适用：彭宁顿诉韦恩案是否适用？（违反诚信原则）

• Test: Would it be unconscionable for the donor/settlor (or their estate) to deny the intended transaction? Consider assurances, agent roles, detrimental reliance.
  测试：对于赠与人/委托人（或其遗产）而言，否认预期的交易是否是不合情理的？考虑保证、代理人角色、不利依赖。
• Scenario Check: Are there factors beyond failed transfer, like specific representations made to the donee upon which they acted? (Pennington v Waine).
  情形核查：是否存在转移失败之外的因素，例如对受赠人作出的特定陈述，而受赠人据此采取了行动？（Pennington v Waine 案）。
• IF YES (Unconscionability Arguable):
  如果 是 (可争辩的显失公平):

• Template Conclusion:  模板结论：
   "Given the failures under Milroy and Re Rose, the final resort is the controversial principle in Pennington v Waine. It could be argued it would be unconscionable to retract the gift due to [***Specify factors: e.g., 'detrimental reliance by the donee based on assurances'***]. If successful, equity would impose a constructive trust. However, this principle's application is uncertain and fact-sensitive."
  鉴于在 Milroy 案和 Re Rose 案下的失败，最后的手段是 Pennington v Waine 案中有争议的原则。可以辩称，由于[***具体说明因素：例如，“受赠人基于保证而产生的不利依赖”***]，撤回赠与是不合情理的。如果成功，衡平法将施加推定信托。然而，这项原则的应用是不确定的，并且对事实非常敏感。

• IF NO (Unconscionability Unlikely):
  如果否（不合情理的可能性不大）：

• Template Conclusion:  模板结论：
   "An argument based on unconscionability (Pennington v Waine) appears weak here due to lack of factors such as [***Specify missing elements: e.g., 'clear detrimental reliance'***]. It is unlikely equity would intervene."
  基于不合情理的论点（Pennington v Waine）在此处显得薄弱，因为缺乏诸如[***指定缺失要素：例如，“明显的依赖性损害”***]等因素。衡平法不太可能介入。

• (Consider Step 6 & 7 only if facts warrant)
  （仅当事实需要时才考虑步骤 6 和 7）

STEP 6: If Transaction Failed: Does Strong v Bird Apply? (Accidental Perfection)
第 6 步：如果交易失败：Strong v Bird 是否适用？（意外的完善）

• Test: (1) Donor intended an immediate inter vivos gift/debt release. (2) Intention continued unchanged until death. (3) Donee/debtor became donor's executor or administrator. (Strong v Bird).
  测试：（1）赠与人意图立即进行生前赠与/债务免除。（2）该意图持续到去世前未变。（3）受赠人/债务人成为赠与人的遗嘱执行人或管理人。（Strong v Bird）。
• Scenario Check: Was the intent immediate and lifetime? (Re James; contrast Re Gonin ). Did donee become the Personal Representative (PR)?  
  情景核查：意图是否是即时且终身的？（Re James；对比 Re Gonin）。受赠人是否成为遗产管理人 (PR)？
• IF YES (Strong v Bird Applies):
  如果是（Strong v Bird 适用）：

• Template Conclusion:  模板结论：
   "The rule in Strong v Bird appears applicable. [Donor] intended an immediate inter vivos [gift/release] ([Evidence]), this intention continued, and [Donee] became the [Executor/Administrator]. The vesting of legal title in [Donee] as PR perfected the previously imperfect [gift/release]."
  "Strong v Bird 规则似乎适用。[赠与人]意图立即进行生前[赠与/豁免]（[证据]），此意图持续存在，并且[受赠人]成为[遗嘱执行人/遗产管理人]。作为遗产代表的[受赠人]的法定所有权归属完善了先前不完善的[赠与/豁免]。"

• IF NO (Strong v Bird Does Not Apply):
  如果不适用（Strong v Bird 法则不适用）：

• Template Conclusion:  模板结论：
   "The rule in Strong v Bird is inapplicable because [***Specify missing element: e.g., 'intention was not for immediate inter vivos gift (Re Gonin)', 'donee did not become PR'***]."
  "Strong v Bird 法则不适用，因为[***请指明缺失的要素：例如，“意图并非立即生效的生前赠与 (Re Gonin)”，“受赠人未成为遗产管理人”***]。"

STEP 7: If Transaction Failed: Does Donatio Mortis Causa (DMC) Apply?
第七步：如果交易失败：临终赠与(DMC)是否适用？

• Test: (1) Gift made in contemplation of impending death. (2) Gift conditional upon death (revocable before). (3) Donor parted with dominion (delivered property or essential indicia of title/control).
  测试：(1) 赠与是在预期即将死亡的情况下做出的。(2) 赠与以死亡为条件（之前可撤销）。(3) 赠与人放弃了支配权（交付了财产或所有权/控制权的重要标志）。
• Scenario Check: Was donor facing specific peril? Did they hand over keys, deeds, passbooks? (Sen v Headley; Chan Gordon; Woodward v Woodward). Was control truly relinquished?
  情形核查：赠与人是否面临特定的危险？他们是否交出了钥匙、契约、存折？(Sen v Headley; Chan Gordon; Woodward v Woodward)。控制权是否真正放弃？
• IF YES (DMC Applies):  如果是（适用临终赠与）：

• Template Conclusion:  模板结论：
   "This may be a valid Donatio Mortis Causa (DMC). [Donor] made the gift contemplating death from [Cause]; it was conditional on death; and by delivering [***Specify item/means of control, e.g., 'the sole key to the box containing the deeds'***], they parted with dominion over [Property]. The gift was perfected upon death."
  "这可能是一个有效的临终赠与（DMC）。[赠与人]在考虑因[原因]死亡的情况下作出了赠与；它以死亡为条件；并且通过交付[***指定物品/控制方式，例如，“包含契据的盒子的唯一钥匙”***]，他们放弃了对[财产]的控制权。该赠与在死亡时完成。"

• IF NO (DMC Does Not Apply):
  如果否（不适用临终赠与）：

• Template Conclusion:  模板结论：
   "The requirements for a DMC are not met because [***Specify missing element: e.g., 'not made in contemplation of death', 'donor failed to part with dominion'***]."
  "由于[***指定缺失要素：例如，“并非在预期死亡的情况下作出”，“捐赠人未能放弃管辖权”***]，因此不符合死亡赠与(DMC)的要求。"

STEP 8: Final Conclusion for the Property
第八步：财产的最终结论

• Instruction: Synthesise the findings from the relevant steps.
  说明：综合相关步骤的调查结果。
• Template:  模板：
   "Therefore, regarding the [Property Name], the intended transaction ['succeeded because...' (state the successful principle/exception) / 'failed because...' (state why rules/exceptions did not apply)]. The property ['is held on trust for Beneficiary Y' / 'belongs to Donee Z' / 'reverts to the settlor/donor or their estate']."
  "因此，关于[财产名称]，预期的交易['成功，因为...'（说明成功的原则/例外情况）/'失败，因为...'（说明规则/例外情况不适用的原因）]。该财产['为受益人 Y 的信托财产'/'属于受赠人 Z'/'归还给委托人/捐赠人或其遗产']。"