Comparison And Research About Void Trusts

Trust System is generally accepted as a kind of financial tool, which thus makes it become a legislative schedule. In order to establish and validate a trust, one should follow relative laws and regulations. Validity is the foremost part when constitute a trust. This essay is trying to analyze how to perfect some existing invalid legal provisions problems in our country through comparison between two law systems.The first chapter discusses and compares different constructive requirements of trust validity in different law systems. First comes to the requirements of validity in common law system, where separate the requirements into two phases--establishment and validity. The first phase mainly refers to the three certainty requirements--property, trust beneficiary, and purpose. And the second phase concludes requirements like legal trust purpose and accordance to public order and good custom, and so on. Next comes to the comparison among civil law countries or districts, that is China, Japan, South Korea, and China Taiwan. There are differences between civil law countries. For example, there is no regulations on trusts with litigant purposes in Mauritius. Finally comes to the analyzing and simple recommendations with respect to some legal deficiencies in China.The second chapter mainly compares specific invalid genres among countries in two law systems, and analyze some existing legal provision deficiencies in void trust system. A trust validity depends on the trust establishment and validity requirements. This chapter firstly compares different specific void regulations through using the pattern of constructive requirements, and then compares different legal effects when affirm a trust void. In the first comparison, we compare the different invalid trust genres through using the pattern of constructive requirements, which are trust parties, trust property, trust purpose, and formality requirements, and in which this essay mainly pays attention to trust purpose. The reason why focus on trust purpose is that intention means a lot to an express trust. If the trust intention violates laws or public order, the trust might be void. So in this part, we mainly analyze the four following aspects: the first is false intention, the second illegal trust purpose, the third trust intention violates public order and good customs, and the fourth establishment of litigant trust.The third chapter mainly discusses on how to perfect Chinese legal provisions on void trust systems. When comparing different invalid trust genres with illegal purpose, this essay mainly focuses on oral formalities, trust register, and different trust types. On this ground, this essay offers four points to perfect the existing invalid trust regulation problems--the first is permit of the oral formality, the second establishment of register system, the third permit declaration trust, and the fourth import of resulting trust. For importing the resulting trust to China, we should firstly make trust a brand new legal title, so that we can combine the function of result trust to enact a new law about result trust to promote the development of trust.The last part of this essay is a conclusion. Here we mention the main comparison content of every part above, and the corresponding analysis and suggests.