Talk:Quistclose trusts in English law
 | Quistclose trusts in English law has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 29, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in English law, Quistclose may be constructive trusts, resulting trusts, express trusts, or completely illusory? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
There are lots of rambling ideas expressed here about trusts in general which have nothing to do with the subject matter and there are obvious errors in the academic discussion.
For example: 'this reference to "conscience" could make Quistclose trusts constructive in nature...'
The reference to the word 'conscience' has no bearing on the type of trust in question, but relates solely to the equitable practice of taking into account the concept of fairness.
The article needs to be re-written to focus on the subject matter. Londonlinks (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Good Article[edit]
I appreciate that this article received its GA rating in 2010 when standards may have been more relaxed, but it feels like a long way from a GA right now. The discussions of the main issues is superficial, leaving out a number of key cases. And I have to question whether the overall length and sourcing is really GA class. Just saying. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)