In trust law, a fundamental maxim states that “equity will not perfect an imperfect gift.” In simple terms, if a donor fails to complete all legal formalities when transferring property, equity generally won’t “step in” to help the intended beneficiary (often called a volunteer). However, there are important exceptions—grounded in fairness—allowing the donor’s intention to prevail. Two of the key exceptions are the rule in Strong v Bird and donatio mortis causa.
The Maxim and Its Exceptions
The traditional rule means that if a gift is legally imperfect (for example, an incomplete transfer), equity refuses to perfect it because the beneficiary has given no consideration. Yet, equity can intervene where strict application would defeat the donor’s clear, continuous intention to give. This flexibility is essential to ensure that a donor’s wishes are honored.
The Rule in Strong v Bird (1874)
One landmark case is Strong v Bird. In this case, a stepmother lent money to her stepson with an agreement that the loan be repaid by reducing her rent. When she reverted to paying full rent, her stepson was later appointed as her executor. The court held that—since an executor cannot sue himself—the appointment perfected the gift, effectively forgiving the debt.
Key conditions for this rule to apply include:
- A present and continuous intention to make an inter vivos gift
- The beneficiary being appointed as executor (or administrator)
- The subject matter of the gift remaining identifiable until the donor’s death
This exception prevents an absurd result where an executor would have to recover a debt from themselves, thereby honoring the donor’s lasting intention.
(Facts sourced from Oxford Reference: citeturn0search15 and Studocu summaries: citeturn0search11)
Donatio Mortis Causa: Gifts Made in Contemplation of Death
Another exception is donatio mortis causa (DMC), or deathbed gifts. These are gifts made by a person expecting imminent death, where the transfer is incomplete until the donor dies. Even if formalities aren’t fully satisfied during the donor’s lifetime, the gift becomes perfect at death—provided the donor has part‑ed with control over the property. This exception blurs the line between an inter vivos gift and a testamentary gift, offering relief when the donor’s intention is unmistakable.
(Definition and explanation from Corax Foundation: citeturn0search4)
The Role of Property Estoppel
In some instances, a property owner’s conduct (such as allowing another to incur expenses for improvements) may give rise to a claim by property estoppel. Although less common than the first two exceptions, this principle can also perfect an imperfect gift when fairness demands that the volunteer should acquire an equitable interest.
Certainty of Intention: The Heart of the Matter
Across all these exceptions, the donor’s continuing intention is paramount. Whether through the rule in Strong v Bird or donatio mortis causa, equity focuses on preserving that intention—even when legal formalities aren’t fully completed. This principle ensures that the donor’s genuine wishes are not thwarted by technical imperfections.
Conclusion
While the maxim “equity will not perfect an imperfect gift” serves to enforce legal certainty, equity’s flexible approach ensures that a donor’s clear and persistent intention is respected. Exceptions like the rule in Strong v Bird and donatio mortis causa prevent unjust results and preserve the integrity of trust formation.