Solutions Manual For
Essentials of Business Law
and the Legal Environment
14th Edition By Richard
Mann, Barry Roberts (All
Chapters 1-50, 100% Original
Verified, A+ Grade)
All Chapters Arranged
Reverse: 50-1
This is The Original Solutions
Manual For 14th Edition, All
other Files in The Market are
Fake/Old/Wrong.
, Solution and Answer Guide: Mann/Roberts, Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment, 14e, (c) 2025, 9780357987766; Chapter 50:
Trusts and Wills
Solution and Answer Guide
Mann/Roberts, Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment, 14e, (c) 2025, 9780357987766;
Chapter 50: Trusts and Wills
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Answers to Ethical Dilemma........................................................................................1
Answers to Questions and Case Problems...................................................................1
Answers to “Taking Sides” Problems........................................................................10
ANSWERS TO ETHICAL DILEMMA
When Should Life Support Cease?
1. Under what circumstances should life-sustaining mechanisms be removed? Who should make the decision?
2. How would your answer change if Andrews were discovered to be six months pregnant?
3. If attending physicians must make the decision, should they be subject to civil or criminal liability arising out of
their actions?
Answer:
1. In the absence of a document executed by the incapacitated individual, it has been suggested that close
family members, or attending physicians should be allowed to make the decision to withhold medical
treatment. The value in preserving life and dignity in life, the role of the family, physician, and court in
making life and death decisions are among the issues raised by the sad and disturbing facts presented.
2. The potential of pregnancy illustrates that the abortion issue may be embedded in a case involving the right
to die. As noted above, the Pennsylvania law would override Lesley’s directive to die, had she expressed
such an intent. If Lesley’s infant were born with a severe defect, (i.e., potentially from medication to
alleviate Lesley’s pain) could an action be maintained for a wrongful birth by relatives? Pregnancy adds
significant constitutional and ethical questions.
3. If attending physicians are placed in a position of having to make life and death decisions, strong
procedural guidance should be provided. The question raises the issue of how society should impose
accountability for these difficult decisions.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND CASE PROBLEMS
1. State and explain whether or not a trust is created in each of the following situations:
a. A declares herself trustee of “the bulk of my securities” in trust for B.
b. A, the owner of Blackacre, purports to convey to B in trust for C “a small part” of Blackacre.
c. A deposits $100,000 in a savings bank. He declares himself trustee of the deposit in trust to pay B $50,000
out of the deposit, reserving the power to withdraw from the deposit any amounts not in excess of $50,000.
Answer:
(a) A trust is not created because the description is so indefinite that the property cannot be ascertained.
(b) No trust is created because of the indefinite description.
© 2025 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly
accessible website, in whole or in part.
1
, Solution and Answer Guide: Mann/Roberts, Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment, 14e, (c) 2025, 9780357987766; Chapter 50:
Trusts and Wills
(c) A trust of the deposit is created of which B is beneficiary to the extent of $50,000. It does not fail
because the trustee has reserved power to withdraw property from the trust. Restatement of the Law of
Trusts, 2d, Section 58.
2. Testator gives property to Timothy in trust for Barney’s benefit, providing that Barney cannot assign or pledge
future trust income. Barney borrows money from Linda, assigning his future income under the trust for a stated
period. Can Linda obtain any judicial relief to prevent Barney from collecting this income? Explain.
Answer: No. This is called a spendthrift trust. The beneficiary cannot anticipate the income and his
creditors occupy no better position. This is a very common provision and is perhaps one of the reasons why
the trust was created.
3. Collins was trustee for Indolent under the will of Indolent’s father. Indolent, a middle-aged doctor, gave little
concern to the management of the trust fund, contenting himself with receiving the income paid to him by the
trustee. Among the assets of the trust were 100 shares of ABC Corporation and 100 shares of XYZ Corporation.
About two years before the termination of the trust, Collins purchased the ABC stock from the trust at a fair
price and after a full explanation to Indolent. At the same time but without saying anything to Indolent, he
purchased the XYZ stock at a price higher than its current market value. At the termination of the trust, both
stocks had advanced in market value well beyond the prices paid by Collins, and Indolent demanded that
Collins either account for this advance in the value of both stocks or replace the stocks. Discuss what Indolent’s
rights are. Explain.
Answer: Collins can probably keep the ABC Corporation stock, although it was unethical of him to deal
with the trust property, but he must account for or replace the XYZ Corporation stock.
There is a distinction to be made between transactions occurring directly between a trustee and his
beneficiary , and those transactions in which the trustee deals with himself with respect to the trust estate.
The latter class of transactions are voidable by the beneficiary at his election without giving any reason or
alleging any fraud, or any advantage or inadequacy of price. But where the trustee deals directly with
beneficiary the transaction is not by itself voidable at the election of the beneficiary but only presumed to
be invalid, which presumption may be rebutted. Owens v. Owens, 196 Va. 960.
4. Joe Brown gave $350,000 to his wife, Mary, with which to buy real property. They orally agreed that title to the
real property should be taken in the name of Mary Brown but that she should hold the property in trust for Joe
Brown. There were two witnesses to the oral agreement, both of whom are still living. Mary purchased the
property on September 2, and a deed to it with Mary Brown as the grantee was delivered.
Mary died ten years later, without a will. The real property is now worth $1 million. Joe Brown is claiming the
property as the beneficiary of a trust. Mary’s children are claiming that the property belongs to Mary’s estate
and have pleaded the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds as defenses to Joe’s claim. There is no
evidence to prove whether Mary would or would not have conveyed the property to Joe during her lifetime if
she had been requested to do so. Explain what Joe’s ownership rights are to this particular real property.
Answer: Joe Brown is the owner of the real property by virtue of a resulting trust and neither the statute
of limitations nor other equitable defenses are a bar to his claim. The statute of frauds provides that
resulting trusts, trusts created by construction, implication or operation of law need not be in writing, and
may be proved by parol evidence.
Joe Brown is the beneficiary of a purchase-money resulting trust. It is the duty of the holder of the legal
title under a resulting trust to convey the property to the person who paid the purchase price wherever he
demands such conveyance. Restatement, Trusts, 2d, Sections 404, 440.
Where a husband pays the purchase price for land that is transferred at his direction to his wife, parol
evidence is admissible to show that the payor intended that the transferee should not have the beneficial
interest in the property. In this problem the intention of the parties is expressly and clearly manifested by an
© 2025 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly
accessible website, in whole or in part.
2
, Solution and Answer Guide: Mann/Roberts, Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment, 14e, (c) 2025, 9780357987766; Chapter 50:
Trusts and Wills
oral agreement between the husband and wife, to which there are two available witnesses. Restatement,
Trusts, 2d, Section 443; Scott, Trusts, 2d ed., Section 443.
Joe Brown’s claim is not barred by the statute of limitations or laches. The beneficiary of an express trust or
resulting trust is not barred by the mere passing of time from enforcing the trust; it is only when the trustee
has repudiated the trust to the knowledge of the beneficiary that the statute of limitations begins to run.
During the continuance and recognition of the trust, the possession of the trustee is presumed to be the
possession of the beneficiary. There is no adverse or hostile holding. The cause of action arises when, and
only when, there has been some adverse assertion of adverse ownership, or a refusal to comply upon
demand, or a disavowal or repudiation of the trust brought to the attention of the beneficiary. 4 Bogert, 2d,
Trusts and Trustees, Sections 951-952; Scott, Trusts, 2d, Section 219.
5. On March 10, John Carver executed his will, which was witnessed by William Hobson and Sam Witt. By his
will, Carver devised his farm, Stonecrest, to his nephew, Roy White. The residue of his estate was given to his
sister, Florence Carver.
A codicil to his will executed on April 15 of that year provided that $50,000 be given to Carver’s niece, Mary
Jordan, and $50,000 to Wanda White, Roy White’s wife. The codicil was witnessed by Roy White and Harold
Brown. John Carver died September 1 of that year, and the will and codicil were admitted to probate. Explain
how Carver’s estate be should distributed.
Answer: Roy White will take Stonecrest, Mary Jordan will receive $50,000 and Carver’s sister will
receive the residue. The bequest of $50,000 to Roy White’s wife is, in many jurisdictions, void because
White attested the execution of the codicil. The $50,000 she would have taken becomes a part of the
residue.
Many statutes on wills provide that a legacy or interest given in a will to a person attesting its execution or
to his spouse is void as to that beneficiary and all persons claiming under him, unless the will is otherwise
attested by a sufficient number of witnesses as required by law exclusive of such person, although he is
entitled to receive so much of the devise, legacy or interest given him by the will as does not exceed the
value of the testator’s estate to which he would be entitled were the will not established. The statutes are
designed to prevent attesting witnesses from taking gifts under a will for the establishment of which their
attestation is necessary.
Under the statutes a testamentary gift is invalidated only where the witness has attested the instrument
under which he or his immediate family takes. A beneficiary who was not a witness to the original will is
entitled to the interest given thereunder although he was an attesting witness to a codicil under which he
takes nothing.
6. Edwin Fuller, a bachelor, prepared his will in his office. The will, which contained no residuary clause, provided
that one-third of his estate would go to his nephew, Tom Fuller, one-third to the city of Emanon to be used for
park improvements, and one-third to his brother, Kurt.
He signed the will in his office and then went to the office of his nephew, Tom Fuller, who signed the will as a
witness at Edwin’s request. No other persons were available in Tom’s office, so Edwin then went to the bank,
where Frank Cash, the cashier, also signed as a witness at Edwin’s request. In each instance, Edwin stated that
he had signed the document but did not state that it was his will.
Edwin returned to his office and placed the will in his safe. Subsequently, Edwin died, survived by Kurt, his
only heir-at-law. Explain how the estate should be distributed.
Answer: Several questions are posed by the problem. First, the question arises as to whether or not the
will has been properly executed. Statutes on wills usually contain provisions to the effect that a will must
be signed by the testator or some person in his presence by his direction and shall be attested in the
presence of the testator by two or more credible witnesses. The will in the problem was properly executed
even though the testator signed out of the presence of the two witnesses. It is not indispensable to a proper
© 2025 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly
accessible website, in whole or in part.
3
Essentials of Business Law
and the Legal Environment
14th Edition By Richard
Mann, Barry Roberts (All
Chapters 1-50, 100% Original
Verified, A+ Grade)
All Chapters Arranged
Reverse: 50-1
This is The Original Solutions
Manual For 14th Edition, All
other Files in The Market are
Fake/Old/Wrong.
, Solution and Answer Guide: Mann/Roberts, Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment, 14e, (c) 2025, 9780357987766; Chapter 50:
Trusts and Wills
Solution and Answer Guide
Mann/Roberts, Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment, 14e, (c) 2025, 9780357987766;
Chapter 50: Trusts and Wills
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Answers to Ethical Dilemma........................................................................................1
Answers to Questions and Case Problems...................................................................1
Answers to “Taking Sides” Problems........................................................................10
ANSWERS TO ETHICAL DILEMMA
When Should Life Support Cease?
1. Under what circumstances should life-sustaining mechanisms be removed? Who should make the decision?
2. How would your answer change if Andrews were discovered to be six months pregnant?
3. If attending physicians must make the decision, should they be subject to civil or criminal liability arising out of
their actions?
Answer:
1. In the absence of a document executed by the incapacitated individual, it has been suggested that close
family members, or attending physicians should be allowed to make the decision to withhold medical
treatment. The value in preserving life and dignity in life, the role of the family, physician, and court in
making life and death decisions are among the issues raised by the sad and disturbing facts presented.
2. The potential of pregnancy illustrates that the abortion issue may be embedded in a case involving the right
to die. As noted above, the Pennsylvania law would override Lesley’s directive to die, had she expressed
such an intent. If Lesley’s infant were born with a severe defect, (i.e., potentially from medication to
alleviate Lesley’s pain) could an action be maintained for a wrongful birth by relatives? Pregnancy adds
significant constitutional and ethical questions.
3. If attending physicians are placed in a position of having to make life and death decisions, strong
procedural guidance should be provided. The question raises the issue of how society should impose
accountability for these difficult decisions.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND CASE PROBLEMS
1. State and explain whether or not a trust is created in each of the following situations:
a. A declares herself trustee of “the bulk of my securities” in trust for B.
b. A, the owner of Blackacre, purports to convey to B in trust for C “a small part” of Blackacre.
c. A deposits $100,000 in a savings bank. He declares himself trustee of the deposit in trust to pay B $50,000
out of the deposit, reserving the power to withdraw from the deposit any amounts not in excess of $50,000.
Answer:
(a) A trust is not created because the description is so indefinite that the property cannot be ascertained.
(b) No trust is created because of the indefinite description.
© 2025 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly
accessible website, in whole or in part.
1
, Solution and Answer Guide: Mann/Roberts, Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment, 14e, (c) 2025, 9780357987766; Chapter 50:
Trusts and Wills
(c) A trust of the deposit is created of which B is beneficiary to the extent of $50,000. It does not fail
because the trustee has reserved power to withdraw property from the trust. Restatement of the Law of
Trusts, 2d, Section 58.
2. Testator gives property to Timothy in trust for Barney’s benefit, providing that Barney cannot assign or pledge
future trust income. Barney borrows money from Linda, assigning his future income under the trust for a stated
period. Can Linda obtain any judicial relief to prevent Barney from collecting this income? Explain.
Answer: No. This is called a spendthrift trust. The beneficiary cannot anticipate the income and his
creditors occupy no better position. This is a very common provision and is perhaps one of the reasons why
the trust was created.
3. Collins was trustee for Indolent under the will of Indolent’s father. Indolent, a middle-aged doctor, gave little
concern to the management of the trust fund, contenting himself with receiving the income paid to him by the
trustee. Among the assets of the trust were 100 shares of ABC Corporation and 100 shares of XYZ Corporation.
About two years before the termination of the trust, Collins purchased the ABC stock from the trust at a fair
price and after a full explanation to Indolent. At the same time but without saying anything to Indolent, he
purchased the XYZ stock at a price higher than its current market value. At the termination of the trust, both
stocks had advanced in market value well beyond the prices paid by Collins, and Indolent demanded that
Collins either account for this advance in the value of both stocks or replace the stocks. Discuss what Indolent’s
rights are. Explain.
Answer: Collins can probably keep the ABC Corporation stock, although it was unethical of him to deal
with the trust property, but he must account for or replace the XYZ Corporation stock.
There is a distinction to be made between transactions occurring directly between a trustee and his
beneficiary , and those transactions in which the trustee deals with himself with respect to the trust estate.
The latter class of transactions are voidable by the beneficiary at his election without giving any reason or
alleging any fraud, or any advantage or inadequacy of price. But where the trustee deals directly with
beneficiary the transaction is not by itself voidable at the election of the beneficiary but only presumed to
be invalid, which presumption may be rebutted. Owens v. Owens, 196 Va. 960.
4. Joe Brown gave $350,000 to his wife, Mary, with which to buy real property. They orally agreed that title to the
real property should be taken in the name of Mary Brown but that she should hold the property in trust for Joe
Brown. There were two witnesses to the oral agreement, both of whom are still living. Mary purchased the
property on September 2, and a deed to it with Mary Brown as the grantee was delivered.
Mary died ten years later, without a will. The real property is now worth $1 million. Joe Brown is claiming the
property as the beneficiary of a trust. Mary’s children are claiming that the property belongs to Mary’s estate
and have pleaded the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds as defenses to Joe’s claim. There is no
evidence to prove whether Mary would or would not have conveyed the property to Joe during her lifetime if
she had been requested to do so. Explain what Joe’s ownership rights are to this particular real property.
Answer: Joe Brown is the owner of the real property by virtue of a resulting trust and neither the statute
of limitations nor other equitable defenses are a bar to his claim. The statute of frauds provides that
resulting trusts, trusts created by construction, implication or operation of law need not be in writing, and
may be proved by parol evidence.
Joe Brown is the beneficiary of a purchase-money resulting trust. It is the duty of the holder of the legal
title under a resulting trust to convey the property to the person who paid the purchase price wherever he
demands such conveyance. Restatement, Trusts, 2d, Sections 404, 440.
Where a husband pays the purchase price for land that is transferred at his direction to his wife, parol
evidence is admissible to show that the payor intended that the transferee should not have the beneficial
interest in the property. In this problem the intention of the parties is expressly and clearly manifested by an
© 2025 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly
accessible website, in whole or in part.
2
, Solution and Answer Guide: Mann/Roberts, Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment, 14e, (c) 2025, 9780357987766; Chapter 50:
Trusts and Wills
oral agreement between the husband and wife, to which there are two available witnesses. Restatement,
Trusts, 2d, Section 443; Scott, Trusts, 2d ed., Section 443.
Joe Brown’s claim is not barred by the statute of limitations or laches. The beneficiary of an express trust or
resulting trust is not barred by the mere passing of time from enforcing the trust; it is only when the trustee
has repudiated the trust to the knowledge of the beneficiary that the statute of limitations begins to run.
During the continuance and recognition of the trust, the possession of the trustee is presumed to be the
possession of the beneficiary. There is no adverse or hostile holding. The cause of action arises when, and
only when, there has been some adverse assertion of adverse ownership, or a refusal to comply upon
demand, or a disavowal or repudiation of the trust brought to the attention of the beneficiary. 4 Bogert, 2d,
Trusts and Trustees, Sections 951-952; Scott, Trusts, 2d, Section 219.
5. On March 10, John Carver executed his will, which was witnessed by William Hobson and Sam Witt. By his
will, Carver devised his farm, Stonecrest, to his nephew, Roy White. The residue of his estate was given to his
sister, Florence Carver.
A codicil to his will executed on April 15 of that year provided that $50,000 be given to Carver’s niece, Mary
Jordan, and $50,000 to Wanda White, Roy White’s wife. The codicil was witnessed by Roy White and Harold
Brown. John Carver died September 1 of that year, and the will and codicil were admitted to probate. Explain
how Carver’s estate be should distributed.
Answer: Roy White will take Stonecrest, Mary Jordan will receive $50,000 and Carver’s sister will
receive the residue. The bequest of $50,000 to Roy White’s wife is, in many jurisdictions, void because
White attested the execution of the codicil. The $50,000 she would have taken becomes a part of the
residue.
Many statutes on wills provide that a legacy or interest given in a will to a person attesting its execution or
to his spouse is void as to that beneficiary and all persons claiming under him, unless the will is otherwise
attested by a sufficient number of witnesses as required by law exclusive of such person, although he is
entitled to receive so much of the devise, legacy or interest given him by the will as does not exceed the
value of the testator’s estate to which he would be entitled were the will not established. The statutes are
designed to prevent attesting witnesses from taking gifts under a will for the establishment of which their
attestation is necessary.
Under the statutes a testamentary gift is invalidated only where the witness has attested the instrument
under which he or his immediate family takes. A beneficiary who was not a witness to the original will is
entitled to the interest given thereunder although he was an attesting witness to a codicil under which he
takes nothing.
6. Edwin Fuller, a bachelor, prepared his will in his office. The will, which contained no residuary clause, provided
that one-third of his estate would go to his nephew, Tom Fuller, one-third to the city of Emanon to be used for
park improvements, and one-third to his brother, Kurt.
He signed the will in his office and then went to the office of his nephew, Tom Fuller, who signed the will as a
witness at Edwin’s request. No other persons were available in Tom’s office, so Edwin then went to the bank,
where Frank Cash, the cashier, also signed as a witness at Edwin’s request. In each instance, Edwin stated that
he had signed the document but did not state that it was his will.
Edwin returned to his office and placed the will in his safe. Subsequently, Edwin died, survived by Kurt, his
only heir-at-law. Explain how the estate should be distributed.
Answer: Several questions are posed by the problem. First, the question arises as to whether or not the
will has been properly executed. Statutes on wills usually contain provisions to the effect that a will must
be signed by the testator or some person in his presence by his direction and shall be attested in the
presence of the testator by two or more credible witnesses. The will in the problem was properly executed
even though the testator signed out of the presence of the two witnesses. It is not indispensable to a proper
© 2025 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly
accessible website, in whole or in part.
3
