The significance of these three certainties was well recognized in Knight vs. Lord Langdale`s Knight, where he introduced a principle that made it clear that no trust can or does exist without the three certainties. A trust is a very important relationship that usually arises when a party or person, who is then the trustee, is obligated in equity to hold property for the benefit of another (beneficiary) or for a reason for which the law has permitted it. It is therefore crucial that a trust be secure enough to qualify as valid and easily enforceable. These laws are enforced by different countries of the world and in all countries. Due to the current dependence on the world, it is obvious that most countries have changed their laws to make them friendly to their liking, but to ensure that justice is done to the satisfaction of citizens. Note: The rule of three certainties is not new in Knight v Knight. It was first mentioned in Wright v Atkyns,[4] by Earl Eldon LC. For explicit trust to be valid, there must be three certainties. These are the certainty of intention, the certainty of the object and the certainty of objects.
Without these certainties, explicit trust will not be valid. The purpose of these certainties is to ensure that trust is properly controlled and enforced. ⇒ These certainties are fundamental to the validity of a trust (there is also a potential 4. Certainty), → if any of these certainties are uncertain, confidence may be invalid. The application of the decision took place in Re Harvard Securities, where it was stated that separation is not always very important where the trust consists of identical intangibles. Since 1950, the judiciary has put more will into the interpretation of trust documents, so that they do not become invalid, but make them valid. To the three certainties, a constitution was drawn up, which added a fourth certainty, namely that the property must be preserved by a trustee. If a settler has completed the creation and development of a trust with the three so-called very essential traditions, and then ultimately refuses to transfer that ownership, then there is no trust. The three certainties relate to a rule in English trust law for the creation of express trusts, according to which the trust deed, in order to be valid, must have certainty as to intent, object and object. “Security of will” means that it must be clear that the donor or testator wishes to establish a trust; It does not depend on any particular language, and a trust can be created without using the word “trust” or even the donor knowing that he is creating a trust. Since the 1950s, the courts have been more willing to conclude that the intention was to establish a trust than to declare it invalid. “Certainty of purpose” means that it must be clear which property is part of the trust.
Historically, ownership had to be separated from non-fiduciary property; More recently, courts have drawn a line between tangible and intangible assets, holding that separation is not always necessary for intangible assets. “Certainty of objects” means that it must be clear who the beneficiaries or objects are. The test to determine this differs depending on the type of trust relationship. It may be that all beneficiaries must be individually identified or that the trustees must be able to say with certainty whether an applicant is standing before them, whether he or she is a beneficiary or not. However, according to a simple rule, incompletely constituted trusts die or survive. It all depends on whether the trustee paid valuable attention to the trust exchange. If he has done so, the trust is enforceable against the settler, who may at some point be compelled to transfer the assets of the trust or, in other respects, to pay damages to the beneficiary or trustee. If this does not happen, it certainly means that there is no happiness for the recipient. Another case concerning the three certainties in the current courts is the acceptability of the transfer.