Draft:Chichester Diocesian Fund and Board of Finance Incorporated v Simpson
Submission declined on 27 August 2022 by KylieTastic (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|
Submission declined on 24 July 2022 by The Most Comfortable Chair (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: Declined by The Most Comfortable Chair 22 months ago.
|
Chichester Diocesan Fund and Board of Finance Incorporated v Simpson was an English unjust enrichment case the House of Lords heard.
Case Summary[edit]
A Mr. Caleb Diplock had left money in his will to set up the Chichester Diocesan Fund to benefit various charities including a local girl's school. His nephew, a man named Mr. Simpson, contested the will on the grounds that the contract that set up the fund was invalid due to his uncle's having been induced to add the clause to his will by the future trustees. The House of Lords ruled that the clause in the will was invalid.
Notes[edit]
This is one of England's earliest cases of unjust enrichment and undue influence.
Bibliography[edit]
Chichester Diocesan Fund and Board of Finance Incorporated vs Simpson (trial transcript)
External Links[edit]
https://swarb.co.uk/chichester-diocesan-board-of-finance-v-simpson-hl-21-jun-1944