“Constructive trust” is a more complex legal area and occurs when there is an agreement, agreement or commitment between the two parties. This can be done in two ways if there is an explicit agreement and if it does not exist. In one way or another, the Court will consider all the evidence in the determination on the part of each party: [P]ositive evidence that the parties did not discuss or considered an agreement on the proportions of their economic interest, does not exclude the court… From the diversion of a… There will inevitably be many couples… who have no discussion about ownership. A second proposal to consider is that put forward by Simon Gardner. It takes a two-way approach, depending on the nature of the relationship between the parties. First, it proposes that the Tribunal`s consideration of the concepts of “trust and cooperation” be translated into the context of unjust enrichment, thus allowing for “restitution relief” in order to replace the issues of “voluntary and subjective devaluation”.
Secondly, it proposes that each couple, if it “organizes together its whole life” and that it is in fact a cooperative unit, be an agent of the other and thus retains half a share of the other`s fortune for the benefit of the other. In the absence of such an explicit agreement, the Court may consider the conduct of A and B with respect to the property known as “attribution of a common intention.” If B directly contributed to the payment of mortgage rates or payments for a substantial improvement in the property, the Court may conclude that this must be due to the fact that there was a common intention to share the property. After all, it is very unusual to pay another person`s mortgage without any financial benefit. However, contributions must be significant, only a contribution to budgetary expenditures is not enough, as there may be many other reasons why people pay them. While the explanatory statement of the judgment may be noble, it runs counter to the very purpose of the law. In short, the Court of Appeal inferred an intention of the parties, while expressly acknowledging that such an intention did not exist or could not exist.