La 'certainty of objects' e il potere di nomina nei trust testamentari (Royal Trust Corporation of Canada v The Welfare Institution of the Jews of Athens, 23 agosto 2022)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MassimaIl potere di nominare il beneficiario finale di un trust testamentario fra i “ragionevoli enti benefici in Grecia” (“reasonable charity within the country of Greece”) è valido e non comporta la nullità della disposizione per mancanza della “certainty of objects”. Questo quando le parole del testatore, seppur poco precise, non lasciano dubbi sull’intento di quest’ultimo; e soprattutto quando il titolare del potere è, nei fatti, riuscito ad esercitarlo correttamente. L’esercizio del potere di nomina e quindi la nomina stessa, quando effettuata per testamento, può essere validamente revocata da un testamento successivo. L’indicazione del presidente di un ente benefico quale beneficiario di un trust testamentario – quando è chiaro dalle circostanze che il testatore intendeva beneficiare l’ente – deve essere intesa come riferita all’ente stesso o, almeno, al presidente quale trustee di un trust a favore dell’ente (o meglio del suo scopo).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".