*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0Australian Law Journal<\/em> (Volume\u00c2\u00a089 Part 2) contains the following material:<\/p>\n CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Acting Justice Peter W Young AO<\/strong><\/p>\n CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Peter Butt<\/strong><\/p>\n PERSONALIA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Clare Langford<\/strong><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Acting Justice Peter W Young AO<\/strong><\/p>\n What are accumulations and why they remain important<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/strong>David K L Raphael<\/p>\n The law as to accumulations of income under trusts is often thought of as a difficult academic matter not relevant in practice. This article seeks to upset that view. It explains the origins of the present rules and how proper consideration of the circumstances in which beneficiaries may benefit from accumulating income may result in tax savings and other benefits.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Possession of land: Missteps in the control analysis \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Part 2<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/strong>Chris Boge<\/p>\n Part 1 of this article explored the development of new approaches to the concept of possession in respect of land. A false approach to the concept has emerged in England, and to some extent in Australia. In particular, possessory remedies have been used to vindicate, or are considered available for the protection of, rights of occupation or use of land or various \u00e2\u20ac\u0153degrees of control\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of land. This Part considers more recent directions in the English and Australian positions and the parallel development of the ideas of possession enforceable against limited third parties and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153possession for a purpose\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Restitution sans rescission: Exposing the myth of a fallacy<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/strong>Daniel Morris<\/p>\n Critics of Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234 say that the court in that case confused termination with rescission when awarding restitutionary quantum meruit (RQM) to the plaintiff contractor against the repudiating principal. This alleged confusion became known as the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153rescission fallacy\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. This article seeks to disprove the existence of the rescission fallacy and goes on to argue that in fact, Renard and subsequent cases did not go far enough because they only established the contractor\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s right to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153get what its work is worth\u00e2\u20ac\u009d where the contract\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s failure was the principal\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s fault. In fact, a repudiating contractor should be recognised as having the same rights because RQM has not been fault-based since unjust enrichment replaced implied promise or quasi-contract as the juridical basis for RQM awards.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here:\u00c2\u00a0ALJ Vol 89 No 2 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n