美国田纳西论文代写.然而，为了使这种信任得以成功，必须满足更多的义务。这种信托是真正目的信托他们不得侵犯针对财产规则。在这个原则下，那些非慈善目的信托，作为受益人原则的例外被视为有效，不得多于永恒期较长；即不超过一定时间[ 16 ]。原因是，作为一个公共政策的问题，财产不应该捆绑无限，所以失去了对一般经济。这种信托应持续的最高期间是“存在的生命”加上21年。一个“存在生命”仅仅是一个人活着的时候，目的信托的存在，它是该人的生命的长度，加上21年，定义了最大期限的信任。无论如何最重要的是，它必须能够说，在是否持续将局限于继期信托一开始就和任何可能–甚至最偏远的投机类–它不规则，将导致信托无效永久[ 17 ]。因此，为了避免永久的目的信托，必须明示或默示地限制在永久期操作。这可以通过命名的生活被限制的信任，21年的最后一个幸存者的死亡来实现的，通过限制信托21年立遗嘱人死亡，或通过限制信托”这样的时期，法律允许的。”似乎有这种信任，没有这样的规定，正是由于这些原因，这种信任可能会失败。还应该指出的是，有很多实例的委托人试图给房地产非法人组织出现违反受益人原则。问题是，非法人团体没有法人资格，不能成为信托的受益人。因此，如果这是一个非法人信托，可以确认，它几乎肯定会失败.
However further obligations must be met in order for this trust to succeed. As such trusts are true purpose trusts they must not infringe the rule against perpetuities. Under this principle, those non-charitable purpose trusts which, as an exception to the beneficiary principle are regarded as valid, must not last longer than the perpetuity period; that is for no longer than a certain maximum duration. The reason is that as a matter of public policy, property should not be tied up indefinitely and so be lost to the general economy. The maximum period for which such a trust should last for is “a life in being” plus 21 years. A “life in being” is simply a person alive at the time of the purpose trust coming into existence and it is the length of that person’s life, plus 21 years, that defines the maximum period of duration of the trust. Most important however, is the rule that it must be possible to say at the outset of the trust whether its duration will be confined to the perpetuity period and any possibility – of even the most remote speculative kind – that it will not, will render the trust void for perpetuity. Consequently, in order to avoid perpetuity, the purpose trust must be expressly or impliedly limited to operate within the perpetuity period. This can be achieved by naming the lives in being and limiting the trust to 21 years from the death of the last survivor, by limiting the trust to 21 years from the testator’s death, or by restricting the trust to “such period as the law allows.” There appears to be no such provision in this trust and it is for these reasons that this trust is likely to fail. Also it should be noted that there are many exampled of settlor’s attempting to give property to unincorporated associations which appear to fall foul of the beneficiary principle. The problem is simply that unincorporated associations have no legal personality and cannot be beneficiaries under a trust. Therefore if this is an unincorporated trust it can be confirmed that it will almost certainly fail