reasons not to abolish the rule against

blackmagics

hey guys, i have a college assignment and regrettably i have to argue that the rule against perpetuities should not be abolished, then have a debate vs someone saying that it should be abolished. the reasons to get rid of it seem quite well documented and im pretty much coming up against a brick wall to find ways to make a convincing speech to keep it.

iv emailed my lecturer to ask whether i can talk about keeping it while amending it, but im not sure if this is in the scope of the assignment. my only thoughts at this moment is to go into why the rule is there but im unsure what else to do.

does anyone have any possible reasons why it should be kept ? thanks

Tom Young

Go and read Wylie - Also the Law Reform Commission website on Land Reform. The answers are there.

dermot_sheehan

Reasons for keeping the rule include the traditional reason which is to prevent property being rendered inalienable for a very long period of time (more then a human lifespan plus 21 years). That doesn't justify why the rule could not be modified so a transaction is not void ab initio but only if the event occurs which results in it being vested outside the perpetuity period. I suppose the only possible justification for the unmodified rule is that it creates legal certainty with land transactions (a person doesnt have to look outside the deed, if it violates the rule, its void, no need to seek further information)

paycock

There is a book called the Rights of Man written by Thomas Paine, it was originally a pamphlet written in response to criticism by Edmund Burke of the French Revolution. To paraphrase, Burke's point was that a revolution like that in France could never happen in England as many generations previously, Parliament had enacted legislation which bound all future generations of Britain to a Monarchy.

Paine was less than convinced and countered that this was nonsense, that one generation who have long since left the earth could not govern the affiars of those who have yet even to reach it.

This made sense to me as a legitimate principle behind the rule, I hope I've explained myself properly.

Its not a legal point but sometimes taking a philosophical view gets the mind flowing?

hullaballoo

Good stuff there. I find something like that's always a good place to start.