每一个信任的意义必须由委托人所用的词的确定。东安格利亚大学essay代写:每一个信任 这是完全可能的信任，在其表面上，似乎是为了一个目的被解释为一个个人或个人的信任。有特殊种类的目的信托，实际上直接或间接地使个人受益，法院可以支持它们，本案很可能是这样一种信托。这是，当然，称再登利[ 13 ]原理。他们为目的，法院认为有效的简单的信任因为有个人陈述权谁可以申请有目的进行的。当然，直接或间接受益的个人对信托财产没有公平的利益，将成为法律上的受益人。在重新登利[ 14 ]说明受益人原则的目的是消除目的信托一个抽象的或客观的性质，所以任何目的可以完成确定的，并从而赋予利益的直接或间接的对人的受益人不应宣布无效。因此在重新登利[ 15 ]，为一个公司的员工运动场地维护信任上的员工有陈述权确保受托人把目的实施有效。这类似于这里出现的情况，因为他们的钱将用于一年一度的晚宴，这将是对员工的利益。因此在这个分析这个礼物会成功。
The meaning of every trust must be determined in the light of the words used by the settlor. It is perfectly possible for a trust which, on its face, appears to be for a purpose to be construed as a trust for an individual or individual. There are special kinds of purpose trust which actually benefit individuals either directly or indirectly and the court may uphold them, the present case may well be such a trust. This is, of course, known as the Re Denley principle. They are trusts for purposes which the court holds valid simply because there are individuals with locus standi who can apply to have the purpose carried out. Of course, the individual directly or indirectly benefiting have no equitable interest in the trust property and will be beneficiaries in law. In Re Denley it was explained that the beneficiary principle is designed to eliminate purpose trusts of an abstract or impersonal nature, so that any purpose which may be accomplished with certainty and which does thereby confer a benefit directly or indirectly on human beneficiaries should not be declared void. Thus in Re Denley, a trust for the maintenance of a sports ground for the employees of a company was valid on the ground that the employees has locus standi to ensure that the trustees put the purpose into effect. This is similar to the situation that arises here as they money is to be used for an annual dinner which will be for the benefit of employees. Therefore on this analysis this gift will succeed.