Mutuo o donazione? The presumption of resulting trust (British Columbia, K.G. v D.G., 2023)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tesi Due coniugi canadesi decidono di separarsi. L’abitazione familiare era stata acquistata sia grazie ad un finanziamento bancario sia, e per la maggior parte, mediante un’ingente somma fornita alla coppia da parte della madre del marito. Quest’ultima agiva allora per il recupero della somma sostenendo di aver trasferito il denaro con la volontà di concederlo in mutuo alla coppia e non in donazione. All’esito del giudizio la moglie supera con successo la presunzione legale dell’esistenza di un resulting trust in favore della cedente, ipotesi che ricorre per l’equity anche qualora proprietario del bene appaia un soggetto che nulla abbia corrisposto per ricevere tale utilità e sia allora obbligato a restituirlo al proprietario originario. The author’s view A Canadian couple decide to separate. The family home had been purchased partly through a bank loan and largely through a large sum provided to the couple by the husband’s mother. She then launched a court case for the recovery of the debt, claiming that she intended the transfer of the sum to the couple as a loan and not as a gift. At the end of the judgment the wife successfully overcomes the legal presumption of the existence of a resulting trust in favor of the transferor, a hypothesis that occurs for equity even when the owner of the asset appears to be a person who has paid nothing to receive such a benefit and for that is then obliged to return it to the original owner.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".