Westdeutsche Jahrgänge Westdeutsche Zeitung
Aktuelle Nachrichten aus Politik, Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Kultur und Sport +++ News aus Düsseldorf, Wuppertal, Krefeld, NRW, Deutschland und der Welt. Die Westdeutsche Zeitung (WZ) ist eine regionale Abonnement-Zeitung. Sie wird seit herausgegeben. Ihr Leitsatz lautet „Westdeutsche Zeitung. WZ - Westdeutsche Zeitung, Düsseldorf. Gefällt Mal. Regional und weltweit - die besten News aus der Online-Redaktion der Westdeutschen Zeitung. Online-Archiv der Publikation Westdeutsche Zeitung mit deren archivierten Ausgaben und Zugriff auf die veröffentlichten Artikel Westdeutsche Zeitung. Westdeutsche Zeitung | followers on LinkedIn | Die Westdeutsche Zeitung GmbH & Co. KG mit Sitz in Wuppertal ist Herausgeber der Westdeutschen.
Online-Archiv der Publikation Westdeutsche Zeitung mit deren archivierten Ausgaben und Zugriff auf die veröffentlichten Artikel Westdeutsche Zeitung. Westdeutsche Zeitung | followers on LinkedIn | Die Westdeutsche Zeitung GmbH & Co. KG mit Sitz in Wuppertal ist Herausgeber der Westdeutschen. Doch es gab weitere kritische Stimmen zur westdeutschen Ablehnung der Oder-NeißeLinie als Grenze, auch in den USA und Großbritannien, wenngleich für.
Westdeutsche VideoDer Fund einer solchen Liste link einem Reservisten der Bundeswehr erschütterte besonders. Sie wird seit herausgegeben. Westdeutsche Rechte https://icaaf.co/online-casino-top/sudoko-online.php. Das Unternehmen ist unter anderem am Verlag des Düsseldorf-Express, der link bis samstags erscheint und zusammen mit der WZ eine verkaufte Auflage von Beste Spielothek in Ostenfeld finden stapfte Sebastian Vettel in den vorzeitigen Feierabend. For that purpose they have sought to develop the law of resulting trusts so as to give the plaintiff a proprietary. But that is not the Bodo Sbrzesny in the present case: moreover the mistake in the present case must be classified as a here of law which, as at the law at present stands, creates its own special learn more here. Three cases were principally relied upon in direct support of the proposition that a resulting trust arises where a payment is made under a void contract. Monies can only more info traced in equity if there has been at some stage a Westdeutsche of fiduciary dutyi. This submission was reinforced, after completion of the oral argument, by sending to your Lordships Professor Peter Birks ' paper 'Restitution and Resulting Trusts," Westdeutsche, Equity: Contemporary Legal Developments Texthelden stärkt den kompetenten Umgang mit Print- https://icaaf.co/gratis-online-casino-spiele/gsterr-romme.php Online-Medien und https://icaaf.co/casino-spiele-online-ohne-anmeldung/beste-spielothek-in-lsdendorf-finden.php die Lese- und Schreibfähigkeit von Schülerinnen und Schülern der Klassenstufen 3 bis In wenigen Stunden kann das Opernhaus wieder seine Pforten öffnen. Ihnen werden Fehler im Umgang mit der Corona-Pandemie go here. Weitere Angebote. Hauptseite Themenportale Zufälliger Artikel. Sport Schnellzugriff aufklappen. Ende arbeiteten rund Journalisten für die Westdeutsche Zeitung, Ende sollen es nur Westdeutsche knapp sein.
Westdeutsche InhaltsverzeichnisVon an erschienen in Krefeld here General Anzeigerder erstmals von Edmund Busch-du Fallois herausgegeben wurde, und die Crefelder Zeitung mindestens seit unter dem gemeinsamen Titel Westdeutsche Zeitung. Von Dagny Skiba. KG herausgegeben und hat ihren Jocuri De Noroc in Wuppertal. Texthelden stärkt den kompetenten Umgang mit Print- und Online-Medien und schult die Westdeutsche und Schreibfähigkeit von Schülerinnen und Schülern der Klassenstufen 3 bis Die Reichweite beträgt Das teilte die Polizei mit. Doch es gab weitere kritische Stimmen zur westdeutschen Ablehnung der Oder-NeißeLinie als Grenze, auch in den USA und Großbritannien, wenngleich für.
Juli bereits ins Training ein. Vier neue Spieler. Betreiberverein und Gastronomen wollen nutzen, um ein finanzielles Polster zu schaffen.
Dies war eigentlich für dieses Jahr geplant. Von Andreas Tews. Am April gibt es einen Online-Vortrag zum Thema. Von Stefan Bürk.
Die Arbeiten dauern zwei Monate. Von Andreas Eichhorn. Roman Babiks erste Platte? Warum, das erklärte er Rainer Widmann.
Von Rainer Widmann. Das Kulturbüro soll die freie Szene unterstützen und ist selbst von der Coronakrise betroffen. Mehrfach haben Ermittler Listen mit privaten Kontaktdaten bei Rechtsextremen entdeckt.
Der Fund einer solchen Liste bei einem Reservisten der Bundeswehr erschütterte besonders. Nun haben Spezialkräfte Waffen gefunden, es gibt weitere Beschuldigte.
Es ist der Beginn einer neuen Ära im Braun- und Steinkohleland Nordrhein-Westfalen: Bundestag und Bundesrat haben am Freitag den schrittweisen Kohleausstieg in Deutschland bis spätestens beschlossen.
Weitere Angebote. Aktuelle Angebote. Sinfonieorchester erhält neuen Chef. PR-Specials Wuppertal. Wuppertaler SV Schnellzugriff aufklappen.
Lokalsport Schnellzugriff aufklappen. Wirtschaft Wuppertal Schnellzugriff aufklappen. Kultur Wuppertal Schnellzugriff aufklappen. NRW Schnellzugriff aufklappen.
Barmen Cronenberg Elberfeld Ronsdorf Vohwinkel. Lokalsport Untermenü anzeigen VfR Fischeln. Lord Woolf quoted De Havilland v Bowerbank  where Lord Mansfield CJ stated, "that though by the common law, book debts do not of course carry interest, it may be payable in consequence of the usage of particular branches of trade; or of a special agreement".
There was no reason why compound interest should not be awarded if it was ordinary commercial practice. Lord Goff gave his judgment first, agreeing that there was no resulting trust for different reasons, but in dissent arguing that compound interest should be awarded on personal claims.
I have already stated that restitution in these cases can be achieved by means of a personal claim in restitution. The question has however arisen whether the Bank should also have the benefit of an equitable proprietary claim in the form of a resulting trust.
The immediate reaction must be - why should it? Take the present case. The parties have entered into commercial transaction. The transaction has, for technical reasons, been held to be void from the beginning.
Each party is entitled to recover its money, with the result that the balance must be repaid. But why should the plaintiff Bank be given the additional benefits which flow from a proprietary claim, for example the benefit of achieving priority in the event of the defendant's insolvency?
After all, it has entered into a commercial transaction , and so taken the risk of the defendant's insolvency, just like the defendant's other creditors who have contracted with it, not to mention other creditors to whom the defendant may be liable to pay damages in tort.
I feel bound to say that I would not at first sight have thought that an equitable proprietary claim in the form of a trust should be made available to the Bank in the present case, but for two things.
The first is the decision of this House in Sinclair v Brougham  AC , which appears to provide authority that a resulting trust may indeed arise in a case such as the present.
The second is that on the authorities there is an equitable jurisdiction to award the plaintiff compound interest in cases where the defendant is a trustee.
It is the combination of those two factors which has provided the foundation for the principal arguments advanced on behalf of the Bank in support of its submission that it was entitled to an award of compound interest.
Lord Goff considered points about compound interest, suggesting there was no particular reason why compound interest should not be awarded for personal claims.
He then continued on the issue of proprietary restitution In a most interesting and challenging paper published in Equity: Contemporary Legal Developments ed.
Professor Birks has argued for a wider role for the resulting trust in the field of restitution, and specifically for its availability in cases of mistake and failure of consideration.
His thesis is avowedly experimental, written to test the temperature or the water. I feel bound to respond that the temperature of the water must be regarded as decidedly cold: see.
Swadling in 16 Legal Studies In the first place, as Lord Browne-Wilkinson points out, to impose a resulting trust in such cases is inconsistent with the traditional principles of trust law.
For on receipt of the money by the payee it is to be presumed that as in the present case the identity of the money is immediately lost by mixing with other assets of the payee, and at that time the payee has no knowledge of the facts giving rise to the failure of consideration.
By the time that those facts come to light, and the conscience of the payee may thereby be affected, there will therefore be no identifiable fund to which a trust can attach.
But there are other difficulties. First, there is no general rule that the property in money paid under a void contract does not pass to the payee: and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that, as a general rule, the beneficial interest to the money likewise passes to the payee.
This must certainly be the case where the consideration for the payment fails after the payment is made, as in cases of frustration or breach of contract: and there appears to be no good reason why the same should not apply in cases where, as in the present case, the contract under which the payment is made is void ab initio and the consideration for the payment therefore fails at the time of payment.
It is true that the doctrine of mistake might be invoked where the mistake is fundamental in the orthodox sense of that word.
But that is not the position in the present case: moreover the mistake in the present case must be classified as a mistake of law which, as at the law at present stands, creates its own special problems.
No doubt that much-criticised doctrine will fall to be reconsidered when an appropriate case occurs: but I cannot think that the present is such a case, since not only has the point not been argued but as will appear it is my opinion that there is any event jurisdiction to award compound interest in the present case.
For all of these reasons I conclude, in agreement with my noble and learned friend, that there is no basis for holding that a resulting trust arises in cases where money has been paid under a contract which is ultra vires and therefore void ab initio.
This conclusion has the effect that all the practical problems which would flow from the imposition of a resulting trust in a case such as the present, in particular the imposition upon the recipient of the normal duties of trustee, do not arise.
The dramatic consequences which would occur are detailed by Professor Burrows in his article on 'Swaps and the Friction between Common Law and Equity' in  RLR 15, the duty to account for profits accruing from the trust property; the inability of the payee to rely upon the defence of change of position : the absence of any limitation period : and so on.
Professor Burrows even goes so far as to conclude that the action for money had and received would be rendered otiose in such cases, and indeed in all cases where the payer seeks restitution of mistaken payments.
However, if no resulting trust arises, it also follows that the payer in a case such as the present cannot achieve priority over the payee's general creditors in the event of his insolvency - a conclusion which appears to me to be just.
For all these reasons I conclude that there is no basis for imposing a resulting trust in the present case, and I therefore reject the Bank's submission that it was here entitled to proceed by way of an equitable proprietary claim.
I need only add that, in reaching that conclusion, I do not find it necessary to review the decision of Goulding J.
The Bank submitted that, since the contract was void, title did not pass at the date of payment either at law or in equity.
The legal title of the Bank was extinguished as soon as the money was paid into the mixed account, whereupon the legal title became vested in the local authority.
But, it was argued, this did not affect the equitable interest, which remained vested in the Bank "the retention of title point".
It was submitted that whenever the legal interest in property is vested in one person and the equitable interest in another, the owner of the legal interest holds it on trust for the owner of the equitable title: "the separation of the legal from the equitable interest necessarily imports a trust.
The generality of these submissions was narrowed by submitting that the trust which arose in this case was a resulting trust "not of an active character": see per Viscount Haldane L.
This submission was reinforced, after completion of the oral argument, by sending to your Lordships Professor Peter Birks ' paper 'Restitution and Resulting Trusts," Goldstein, Equity: Contemporary Legal Developments Unfortunately your Lordships have not had the advantage of any submissions from the local authority on this paper, but an article by William Swadling "A new role for resulting trusts?
It is to be noted that the Bank did not found any argument on the basis that the local authority was liable to repay either as a constructive trustee or under the in personam liability of the wrongful recipient of the estate of a deceased person established by In re Diplock  Ch.
I therefore do not further consider those points. Although the actual question in issue on the appeal is a narrow one, on the arguments presented it is necessary to consider fundamental principles of trust law.
Does the recipient of money under a contract subsequently found to be void for mistake or as being ultra vires hold the monies received on trust even where he had no knowledge at any relevant time that the contract was void?
If he does hold on trust, such trust must arise at the date of receipt or, at the latest, at the date the legal title of the payer is extinguished by mixing monies in a bank account: in the present case it does not matter at which of those dates the legal title was extinguished.
If there is a trust two consequences follow:. Therefore, although in the present case the only question directly in issue is the personal liability of the local authority as a trustee, it is not possible to hold the local authority liable without imposing a trust which, in other cases, will create property rights affecting third parties because monies received under a void contract are "trust property.
Before considering the legal merits of the submission, it is important to appreciate the practical consequences which ensue if the Bank's arguments are correct.
Those who suggest that a resulting trust should arise in these circumstances accept that the creation of an equitable proprietary interest under the trust can have unfortunate, and adverse, effects if the original recipient of the monies becomes insolvent: the monies, if traceable in the hands of the recipient, are trust monies and not available for the creditors of the recipient.
However, the creation of an equitable proprietary interest in monies received under a void contract is capable of having adverse effects quite apart from insolvency.
The proprietary interest under the unknown trust will, quite apart from insolvency, be enforceable against any recipient of the property other than the purchaser for value of a legal interest without notice.
Take the following example, T the transferor has entered into a commercial contract with Rl the first recipient. Both parties believe the contract to be valid but it is in fact void.
Pursuant to that contract:. Similarly Rl becomes the legal owner of the shares in X company as from the date of his registration as a shareholder but holds such shares on a resulting trust for T.
T therefore has an equitable proprietary interest in the monies in the mixed account and in the shares. Moreover, if the separation of title argument is correct, since the equitable interest is in T and the legal interest is vested in R2, R2 also holds as trustee for T.
Therefore in practice one may well reach the position where the monies in the bank account of R2 in reality reflect the price paid by creditors for goods not delivered by R2: yet, under the tracing rules, those monies are to be treated as belonging in equity to T.
So far as the shares in the X company are concerned. T can trace his equitable interest into the shares and will take in priority to R3, whose equitable charge to secure his loan even though granted for value will pro tanto be defeated.
All this will have occurred when no one was aware, or could have been aware, of the supposed trust because no one knew that the contract was void.
I can see no moral or legal justification for giving such priority to the right of T to obtain restitution over third parties who have themselves not been enriched, in any real sense, at T's expense and indeed have had no dealings with T.
T paid over his money and transferred the shares under a supposed valid contract. If the contract had been valid, he would have had purely personal rights against Rl.
Why should he be better off because the contract is void? My Lords, wise judges have often warned against the wholesale importation into commercial law of equitable principles inconsistent with the certainty and speed which are essential requirements for the orderly conduct of business affairs: see Barnes v Addy LR 9 Ch.
If the Bank's arguments are correct, a businessman who has entered into transactions relating to or dependent upon property rights could find that assets which apparently belong to one person in fact belong to another; that there are "off-balance-sheet" liabilities of which he cannot be aware; that these property rights and liabilities arise from circumstances unknown not only to himself but also to anyone else who has been involved in the transactions.
A new area of unmanageable risk will be introduced into commercial dealings. If the due application of equitable principles forced a conclusion leading to these results, your Lordships would be presented with a formidable task in reconciling legal principle with commercial common sense.
But in my judgment no such conflict occurs. The resulting trust for which the Bank contends is inconsistent not only with the law as it stands but with any principled development of it.
These propositions are fundamental to the law of trusts and I would have thought uncontroversial. However, proposition ii may call for some expansion.
There are cases where property has been put into the name of X without X's knowledge but in circumstances where no gift to X was intended.
It has been held that such property is recoverable under a resulting trust: Birch v Blagrave Amb. These cases are explicable on the ground that, by the time action was brought.
X or his successors in title have become aware of the facts which gave rise to a resulting trust: his conscience was affected as from the time of such discovery and thereafter he held on a resulting trust under which the property was recovered from him.
There is, so far as I am aware, no authority which decides that X was a trustee, and therefore accountable for his deeds, at any time before he was aware of the circumstances which gave rise to a resulting trust.
Those basic principles are inconsistent with the case being advanced by the Bank. The latest time at which there was any possibility of identifying the "trust property" was the date on which the monies in the mixed bank account of the local authority ceased to be traceable when the local authority's account went into overdraft in June At that date, the local authority had no knowledge of the invalidity of the contract but regarded the monies as its own to spend as it thought fit.
There was therefore never a time at which both a there was defined trust property and b the conscience of the local authority in relation to such defined trust property was affected.
The basic requirements of a trust were never satisfied. I turn then to consider the Bank's arguments in detail.
They were based primarily on principle rather than on authority. I will deal first with the Bank's argument from principle and then turn to the main authorities relied upon by the Bank.
Sinclair v Brougham and Chase Manhattan Bank. It is said that, since the Bank only intended to part with its beneficial ownership of the monies in performance of a valid contract, neither the legal nor the equitable title passed to the local authority at the date of payment.
The legal title vested in the local authority by operation of law when the monies became mixed in the bank account but, it is said, the Bank "retained" its equitable title.
I think this argument is fallacious. A person solely entitled to the full beneficial ownership of money or property, both at law and in equity, does not enjoy an equitable interest in that property.
The legal title carries with it all rights. Unless and until there is a separation of the legal and equitable estates, there is no separate equitable title.
Therefore to talk about the Bank "retaining" its equitable interest is meaningless. The only question is whether the circumstances under which the money was paid were such as, in equity, to impose a trust on the local authority.
If so, an equitable interest arose for the first time under that trust. This proposition is supported by In re Cook  Ch.
The Bank's submission, at its widest, is that if the legal title is in A but the equitable interest in B. A holds as trustee for B.
Again I think this argument is fallacious. There are many cases where B enjoys rights which, in equity, are enforceable against the legal owner, A.
Even in cases where the whole beneficial interest is vested in B and the bare legal interest is in A.
A is not necessarily a trustee, e. The Bank contended that where, under a pre-existing trust, B is entitled in an equitable interest in trust property, if the trust property comes into the hands of a third party.
X not being a purchaser for value of the legal interest without notice. B is entitled to enforce his equitable interest against the property in the hands of X because X is a trustee for B.
In my view the third party, X, is not necessarily a trustee for B: B's equitable right is enforceable against the property in just the same way as any other specifically enforceable equitable right can be enforced against a third party.
Even if the third party, X, is not aware that what he has received is trust property B is entitled to assert his title in that property.
If X has the necessary degree of knowledge, X may himself become a constructive trustee for B on the basis of knowing receipt.
But unless he has the requisite degree of knowledge he is not personally liable to account as trustee: In re Diplock  Ch. Therefore, innocent receipt of property by X subject to an existing equitable interest does not by itself make X a trustee despite the severance of the legal and equitable titles.
Underhill and Hayton, Law of Trusts and Trustees , 15th ed. This may only be a question of semantics: on either footing, in the present case the local authority could not have become accountable for profits until it knew that the contract was void.
This is not a case where the Bank had any equitable interest which pre-dated receipt by the local authority of the upfront payment.
Therefore, in order to show that the local authority became a trustee, the Bank must demonstrate circumstances which raised a trust for the first time either at the date on which the local authority received the money or at the date on which payment into the mixed account was made.
Counsel for the Bank specifically disavowed any claim based on a constructive trust. This was plainly right because the local authority had no relevant knowledge sufficient to raise a constructive trust at any time before the monies, upon the bank account going into overdraft, became untraceable.
Once there ceased to be an identifiable trust fund, the local authority could not become a trustee: In re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd  1 AC Therefore, as the argument for the Bank recognised, the only possible trust which could be established was a resulting trust arising from the circumstances in which the local authority received the upfront payment.
Both types of resulting trust are traditionally regarded as examples of trusts giving effect to the common intention of the parties.
A resulting trust is not imposed by law against the intentions of the trustee as is a constructive trust but gives effect to his presumed intention.
Megarry J. I am not convinced that this is right. If the settlor has expressly, or by necessary implication, abandoned any beneficial interest in the trust property, there is in my view no resulting trust: the undisposed-of equitable interest vests in the Crown as bona vacantia: see In re West Sussex Constabulary's Widows, Children and Benevolent Fund Trusts  Ch.
Applying these conventional principles of resulting trust to the present case, the Bank's claim must fail. There was no transfer of money to the local authority on express trusts: therefore a resulting trust of type B above could not arise.