Talk:Quistclose trusts in English law/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Malleus Fatuorum in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Categorisation
- "... this is that the Quistclose trust is an "illusory trust" where, the apparent beneficiary (the moneylender, for example) takes no active role." The comma is obviously in the wrong place here and needs to be moved, but I'm a little uneasy about "where", as that's usually associated with a place, not a thing like a trust. Is that the usual legalese?
- "Where" is pretty standard, but I can't provide any justification for it. Are there alternatives you'd suggest? Ironholds (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, if that's the usual lingo that's fair enough. Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Where" is pretty standard, but I can't provide any justification for it. Are there alternatives you'd suggest? Ironholds (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- References
- Is there an opening square bracket missing in ref #2?
- Yes, added. BencherliteTalk 00:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why does ref #4 have normal parentheses rather than square ones?
- Different reporters used different styles; these days, square brackets are standard, but that wasn't always the case. Ironholds (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not following what you're doing with citations like "[1985] Ch 207". What does that mean?
- To take these two points together, this is the way legal cases are cited in England and Wales: where the year is an integral part of the reference, it's enclosed in square brackets e.g. "[1985] Ch 207", because there's a volume of Chancery law reports every year, and "Ch 207" would therefore be ambiguous. Where the year is a convenient additional reference, rather than being essential for finding the case in print, it's added in normal brackets e.g. "(1819) 2 B&Ald 683". This is a reference to volume 2 of Barnewell & Alderson's Reports, which happens to date from 1819, but the case report could be found without knowing the year because there's a volume number. From a legal citation point of view, the way Ironholds has done it is fine, although I think there's more usually a space between "B" and "&" and "&" and "Ald". Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 00:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, now I understand, thanks for that. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- To take these two points together, this is the way legal cases are cited in England and Wales: where the year is an integral part of the reference, it's enclosed in square brackets e.g. "[1985] Ch 207", because there's a volume of Chancery law reports every year, and "Ch 207" would therefore be ambiguous. Where the year is a convenient additional reference, rather than being essential for finding the case in print, it's added in normal brackets e.g. "(1819) 2 B&Ald 683". This is a reference to volume 2 of Barnewell & Alderson's Reports, which happens to date from 1819, but the case report could be found without knowing the year because there's a volume number. From a legal citation point of view, the way Ironholds has done it is fine, although I think there's more usually a space between "B" and "&" and "&" and "Ald". Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 00:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.