Equity and Trusts Problem Questions

Equity and Trusts Problem Questions The first step we should attend to briefly is to define what a trust is. Simply put, a trust is a relationship under the law of equity[1] that arises when one person (the settlor) vests the legal title in another person (the trustee) for the benefit of a third-party called a beneficiary. The trustee holds the legal title and the beneficiary-(ies) possess the equitable title and as such the trustee owes them a duty to carry out the duties as defined by the settlor[2]. The most basic species of trust is an express private trust; this is a â€Å"trust which is declared intentionally by the settlor†[3]. There is no fixed mechanism or form of words for creating such a trust because â€Å"equity looks to intent rather than the form†[4]; see Paul-v-Constance[5]. Hudson (p.72) speaks of â€Å"exposing† a trust which demonstrates that it exists by law and is not created by the courts retrospectively. Express trusts can be established during the life of the settlor or as i n this case, via instructions placed in their will.[6] There are two basic sets of requirements for valid trusts; the first is that there needs to be three basic certainties as per Knight-v-Knight[7]; defined as certainty of intention, subject matter and object – if any one fails then there is no trust. The first of these requires that there was a certainty of intention by the purported settlor â€Å"that the person receiving the property is under a mandatory legal obligation to carry out the wishes of the settlor†[8]. Secondly and only logically, it must be certain what the subject of the trust is i.e. the property. Finally, there must be certainty of object i.e. there needs to be someone with equitable ownership to enforce the trust, see Re Endacott[9]. The second basic requirement is that the trust must be constituted i.e. the legal title must pass to the trustee(s). This should not be an issue here because as executors Edward and Sandra would have already acquired legal title of all Alice’s estate[10]. DISPOSITION A Alice’s disposition is potentially void as a trust due, firstly to uncertainty of intention; the disposition does not suggest Alice intends to impose a legal obligation on Edward to carry out her wishes. Rather it potentially suggests she was imposing on him a â€Å"power†. In essence, trusts impose an obligation to act and powers authorise people to carry out certain tasks with a lower level of compulsion.[11] The task we have is to decide what Alice intended and according to Dixton (p.67) â€Å"it is very easy to confuse trusts and powers, especially since most power are given to people who are otherwise trustees†. Edwards (p.80) advises that to differentiate between them is â€Å"a matter of construction for the courts, based on identifying the intention from†¦the language and the document as a whole† He further suggests that a significant indicator would be â€Å"existence of a gift in default of appointment† and wide discretion. Applying t his to our facts, we see that Alice grants him à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¤10,000 to buy a small memento for â€Å"such of my relatives as have not received anything under the other provisions† and after doing this â€Å"to keep what is left†. It is submitted that this does not meet the necessary level of certainty, especially as Edward keeps what is left over, it is merely a power; a power of appointment[12], outside of a trust instrument[13].To impose a trust situation in this case would be to ignore the warning in Re Hamilton to â€Å"take the will you have to construe and see what it means, and if you come to the conclusion that no trust was intended then say so†. The next issue is what kind of powers these are and what level of compulsion exists on Edward to carry out the tasks. This could be a personal power[14] or a fiduciary power and this will turn on whether he was given the power in his capacity as a son or executor. Wilkie (p.52) says if it is a personal power he could distribute â€Å"spitefully, or capriciously, or even go to sleep and forget about exercising the power at all†. You could argue that Alice gave the power to her son in his capacity as a son; and so considering the remainder goes to him then it is all but an absolute gift. He could just buy a few relatives key-rings as mementoes and be done with it. The beneficiaries would have no equitable interest in any property as its quantum is unknowable. The second view you could argue is that he has to exercise the power in his capacity as executor and so he has a higher level of onus upon him. It is submitted that as such, this power of appointment would be what is known as a hybrid or intermediate power[15] in that he is authorised to distribute it to a certain category of objects, relatives, excluding those who have already benefited. The level of compulsion or onus is debatable. In Re Hay’s Settlements[16], it was held that he just cannot ignore this power to appoint randomly, he must make efforts to complete it. And in McPhail-v-Doulton[17] the leading case in this area it was said he â₠¬Å"must act in a responsible manner according to its purpose† and â€Å"make survey of the range of objects† that† will enable him to carry out his fiduciary duties.† Wilkie (p.52) says that there is much lessor onus is on a donee[18] of a power to locate those who may be objects. However, other commentators, see Penner (58+) say the onus depends on the type of power as well as who has been granted it. However, even with ‘powers’, the subjects and objects need to be ascertained and Alice has simply defined â€Å"small memento of me† and â€Å"relatives† minus those who benefited from the will; these are problematic. Firstly, the subject matter is conceptually uncertain[19]; as per Palmer-v-Simmonds[20] and so potentially void; what is ‘small’ and what is a ‘memento’[21]. Secondly, â€Å"relatives† could be taken to be anyone with a common ancestor and as you work back far enough this could include almost anyone. However, in Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (No.2)[22], relatives was equated to next-of-kin and held to be conceptually certain; a strange decision considering how rigid the court has been on conceptual uncertainty. Furthermore in McPhail, the test to ascertain objects for a power was decided as the ‘is or is not’ test described by Wilberforce as, â€Å"can it be said with certainty that any given indi vidual is or is not a member of the class?† Thus it appears possible that we could, if necessary, reach a legal definition of the objects although the problem is the subject of the power. The advice to Edward is pretty clear; as a trust this fails and so based on Curtis v Rippon[23], he could take the entire amount of à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¤20,000 seeing that the amounts to be given to relatives are uncertain and so the absolute gift to him takes effect over the failed trust. However, if viewed as a power, he may be under compulsion to distribute some of the à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¤20,000 buying small mementos for relatives once he complies with the above; although, in practice few would be willing, or able, to compel him to execute this power. DISPOSITION B Does the phrase â€Å"fullest trust and confidence† indicates certainty of intention to create a trust? In Re-Adams-and-Kensington-Vestry[24] a husband gave property to his wife in â€Å"in full confidence that she will do what is right†, yet this was held to only impose a moral obligation upon her. However, in Comiskey-v-Bowring-Hanbury[25] the phrase â€Å"in full confidence† was held to impose a trust. The similarity in these cases is superficial and it is apparent that each was judged on its individual merits and potential settlor’s intentions. Hence, the mechanical application of phrase simply turns the law on its head. It is much more insightful to follow Re Hamilton comments listed above in part A and use common sense. Applying this, it is submitted there is potentially a certainty of intention, but we also need to examine the other certainties. On ‘certainty of subject’; it is trite law that, as per Re-London-Wine-Co[26] that trust property must be ascertainable. In that case un-segregated wine voided certainty. This was supported in Re-Goldcorp-Exchange-Ltd[27] . Mustill[28] said â€Å"rights in property, whether equitable, cannot exist in the air†¦ it can only exist in relation to property which is specifically ascertained†, i.e. physical segregation is necessary[29]. However we are not dealing with a situation exactly similar to Re-London-Wine. Under a will, the executor takes full title to the property on the death and according to Martin(p.60) the â€Å"equitable ownership is in suspense† – the trust has not yet been constituted whereas it allegedly had in London-Wine. All the executors need to do is to walk down to the cellar and physically segregate fifty bottles of wine and identify them as trust property and transfer legal title from Edward/Sandra, as executors, to Edward pers onally. It is obvious Alison knew what was in her wine cellar so the property she is referring to really was not a specific 50 bottles of wine, but 50 of the 80 wine bottles I know I have in my cellar. How else could she describe them if they were homogeneous, was an 80 year old woman close to death meant to go down to her cellar and move bottles around? However, it is the â€Å"old friends†, the potential objects of this trust, which poses more serious problems. The phrase â€Å"my old friends† is conceptually uncertain[30]; both words are subjective; what is a ‘friend’ and what is ‘old’? With the knowledge that this would be a fixed trust if the three certainties were present; i.e. each beneficiary entitled to an â€Å"equal† share then IRC-v-Broadway-Cottages-Trust[31] states that all the beneficiaries must be able to be listed and there is no room for any conceptual uncertainty. The disposition states that Edward should cure any uncertainty and his word is â€Å"final†. However, this is not likely to be accepted by the courts. In Re-Tuck’s-Settlement-Trusts the court allowed a Rabbi, as per the trust document, to cure an issue of uncertainty i.e. whether someone was of â€Å"Jewish blood†[32]. However, the Rabbi was acting in his capacity as expert on the Jewish faith and evidencing the meaning of the words not defining them. You could make a good argument that Edward could define his mother’s old friends just like the Rabbi defined Jewish blood, but it would go against current legal and academic opinion so as a trust it would likely fail. However, the advice in this case might be that this could be treated like above, as a power. This is because, as a power Edward could use the â€Å"is or is not test† rather than the â€Å"complete list† test and so circumvent this issue and give Edward much more leeway to carry out his mother’s intentions. Remember the preference of the courts will be to see Alice’s wishes carried out rather than not. DISPOSITION C There is clearly an intention to create a trust with the subject matter of à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¤20,000, because it is stated. It is further obvious that it is a discretionary trust[33]; this is a type of express trust where the trustee has what is called ‘dispositive discretion ’ i.e. an ability to decide the quantum of trust property, if any, goes to each beneficiary[34]. It is important to note the difference between this and a fixed trust; in a fixed trust the beneficiaries have a severable equitable claim on the property because they can usually calculate what they are entitled to. In a discretionary trust the trustees can exercise discretion; and in this case the basis of this discretion is those â€Å"they find most deserving.† The real issue is who exactly are the objects of the trust; that are subject to this discretion?[35] We are given no names but rather a class description â€Å"such of the first 300 people to have crossed the Victoria Bridge on the 24th of October 2008†. Such descriptors in theory pose no problems. However, if we assume that this date has passed[36], then we are presented with a difficult evidential problem. It is important to point out that the names of the 300 people who were first over Victoria Bridge is a fact; they are an absolute certainty; it is just the trustees don’t know who they are yet. Hence, it is not an issue of ‘conceptual certainty’ as to the class descriptor; it is not like â€Å"old friends†. The issue is one of evidential uncertainty in that the trustees do not have enough evidence to write down a complete list. The courts have grappled with this problem but it is now clear from McPhail-v-Doulton that previous requirements for a c omplete list, like for fixed trusts, are no longer valid. The test now is the â€Å"is or is not† test as outlined above. Hence, the trustees do not need to know the 300 people who crossed the bridge, they only need to meet the test set by Wilberforce in McPhail; â€Å"can it be said with certainty that any given individual is or is not a member of that class†. The issue now is could anyone do this with sufficient certainty. It would not be enough to show you crossed the bridge on the day but that you were one of the first three hundred to do so[37]. This turns on facts we don’t have; considering the coverage of police cameras in London it is likely there is one focused on Victoria Bridge so this might help candidates prove their claim. To conclude this section, the advice is whoever can prove with sufficient certainty that they fall within the class, and then they will become beneficiaries of the trust. However, if no one can prove then the trust will fail for lack of certainty of objects and the à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¤20,000 result back to Alice’s estate. There are a number of other issues which should be covered briefly for Edward and Sandra. Assuming the three certainties are present, then the trust is properly constituted (as the potential trustees they are also executors and have legal title). To be a trustee you need to have reached the age of 18; we are not told Sandra’s age but presumably she complies with this. The trust is defined to be for 21 years i.e. 21 years after Alice’s death and this is permissible under Section 13 of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964. However, it is worth pointing out to Edward and Sandra that the trust is unlikely to last as long as 21 years. Although the beneficiaries would have no rights severally because as Penner (p.85) describes them they are â€Å"mere postulants, seeking the trustees’ largesse†; they could have rights jointly because it is an exhaustive trust[38] i.e. Alice appears to have instructed them to spend all the 20K and there are no devices to return unspent money to the estate. As such the beneficiaries may have rights jointly to petition the court to simply give them the trust property, see Martin (p.211) which presumably they would have agreed to divide equally[39]. References – Bibliography Burn, E, Trusts Trustees Cases Materials 6th Edition, Oxford University Press. Dixon, M, 2005, Equity and Trusts Q A, Cavendish Publishing. Edwards, K, 2000, Essential Equity and Trusts, Routledge. Duddington, J, 2007, Equity and Trusts Law Express, Pearson. Hudson, A, 2005, Equity Trusts, Routledge Cavendish. Mohamed, R, 2004, Cases Materials on Trusts, Routledge Cavendish. Martin, J, 2005,Hanbury Martin, Modern Equity 17th Edition, Sweet Maxwell. Penner, J, 2005, The Law of Trusts Core Text 4th Edition, OUP. Wilkie, M, 2008, Equity and Trusts Blackstones Q A 2008/2009, OUP. 1 Footnotes [1] Space precludes a discussion on the fundamentals of equitable law see Duddington(p.2+). [2] A trust is an onerous obligation and should not, and will not, be imposed casually by the courts if any doubt exists; especially as the courts may ultimately be called to adjudicate upon its operation [3] Hudson(p.38) [4] Re Williams 1897 [5] On the other hand you can use the word â€Å"trust†, as per Tito v Waddell (no2) and this might not create one. [6] They are often known as ‘testamentary trusts’; but not substantially different to inter vivos trusts. [7] 1840 [8] Dixon(p.61) [9] 1960 [10] We are told the will is valid and that is all we need to concern ourselves about with that matter. [11] Martin(p.171) [12] appointment in this sense means the power to give or to appoint the property to someone. [13] Powers can operate „insideâ€Å"or „outsideâ€Å", those outside are known as bare powers i.e. less encumbered by the obligatory nature of the trustees duty. [14] Beware of terminological problems with these phrases, see Wilkie(p.51) [15] See Mohamed(p.118) [16] 1982 [17] 1982 see Burn(p.84) for a discussion of the case and test. [18] The person who is authorised to exercise a power. [19] see Disposition B and C for more details and Duddington(P.15,16) [20] 1854 [21] see below for more detail [22] 1973 [23] 1820 [24] 1884 [25] 1905 [26] 1986 PCC 121 [27] 1985 [28] Quoted in Penner(p.205) [29] It is worth noting the ruling in Hunter v Moss which appears to run contrary to this albeit with intangibles. [30] Penner(p.197+) In Re Gibbard’s Will Trusts 1967 and RE Barlow’s Will Trusts 1979 â€Å"friends† was held certain but the former has been overruled and the latter referred to different legal circumstances. [31] 1955 [32] see Duddington(p.20) [33] see Dixon(p.65+) [34] See Martin(p.104+), see also Edwards(p.77) for concise analysis. [35] I am interpreting the will as meaning there is a potential class size of 300 and over these discretion is exercised. [36] It is not 100% clear from the rubric that his date has passed, although the use of â€Å"to have crossed† clearly infers it. [37] A suggestion of administrative un-workability might arise here [38] It is interesting to note that discretionary trusts presents theoretical problems in that you can ask the question ‚who holds the equitable rights to the property?’ without beneficiaries who enforce the terms of the trust; there is an obvious risk that trustees can become slack in their duties. See Penner(p84+) [39] Space precludes a detailed analysis of these issues

Case Study of Negligence

Duty of care Issue: Does defendant (David or the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery) owned duty of care to plaintiff (Tony)? Rules: * The neighbour principle: In Donoghue v Stevenson1, Lord Atkin concluded that we all owe a duty of care to our â€Å"neighbors†, meaning those persons who we should have in mind when we are contemplating actions that we take as we go about our business and private lives. * Neighbour Defined: â€Å"My neighbors are persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question†. Foreseeability: For an action in negligence to succeed, it must be foreseeable that the act (or omission) of the defendant could cause harm to the plaintiff. The test is one of â€Å"reasonable foreseeability†, which is an â€Å"objective†. * Proximity: There must be some relationship between the parties for the duty to exist. In other words, proximity that requires care to be taken must exist. Application: As Tony was having the surgery in the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery, therefore, whatever will happen based on the surgery, it should be the duty of care of the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery.Be more specific, David is employed there as a full-time dentist and he was the one who attached the artificial teeth by strong dental glue instead of the way which recommended by leading dentists. If David did not change the way of attach the teeth, Tony would never get a severe infection caused by the method of fitting of the artificial teeth. Conclusion Applying the neighbour principle and reasonable foreseeability, David or the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery do owed the duty of care of Tony.And it is foreseeable that the act of the defendant, which may be David or the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery, could cause harm to the plaintiff, which is Tony. Breaching that duty of care Issue: Does the defendant ( David or the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery) breach his duty of care? Rule: * Reasonable person-Standard of care: the standard person would have foreseen harm in the circumstances and would have taken steps to prevent it. The defendant will be in breach of their duty if reasonable steps are not taken to prevent foreseeable harm.The test is an objective one –what a reasonable person thinks. * Weighting test: 1. The likelihood of injury: If the risk of injury is minimal, there will be no breach of the duty of care. 2. Gravity of injury if occurring: The seriousness of any resulting injury 3. Steps needed to remove the risk: The steps required to eliminate the risk 4. Benefit (social utility) of the defendant’s conduct: The social utility of the defendant’s conduct must be weighed against the gravity of the risk. ApplicationAs David’s conduct is measured against the reasonable person who should told Tony there was a risk to use the dental glue . It is possible that David get hurt from the dental glue and the surgery. The gravity of injury is quite serious as his teeth fell out of the new desk while he was on TV presenting the evening news. After he got home his whole mouth was aching and he complained of severe pain in the gap left by extraction. For the steps to eliminate the risk, David should foresee the harm which caused by the dental glue and the possible consequence might cause.Last but not least, there is no benefit (social utility) of the defendant’s conduct. In fact, David could transfer Tony to his other workmate if he is not familiar with the way which suggested by the leading dentist. However, David chose to do it by using the strong glue which causes all the damage. Conclusion Hence, David did breach the duty of care of Tony as he was the reasonable person who should foresee the damage and it is easy to eliminate the damage. LOSS OR DAMAGE FOLLOING FROM BREACH OF DUTY IssueWas Plaintiff (Tony)’s damage the dire ct result of defendant (David or the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery)’ breach? Rules * Causation (but for test): But for the conduct of defendant, would the damage have been suffered? The test was explained well by Lord Denning in Cork v. Kirby Maclean Ltd (1952) 2 ALL ER 402 at 407 , as follows: If you can say that the damage would not have happened but for a particular fault, then that fault is in fact a cause of the damage; but if you can say that the damage would have happened just the same fault or no fault, then the fault is not a cause of the damage.If there is more than one cause of the damage the â€Å"but for† test will have limited application. In such case the courts will use a â€Å"balance of probabilities’ test in determining causation. * Remoteness of damage (reasonable foreseeable test, the test is objective) would a reasonable person have foreseen the damage? * Assessment of damages: the aim of damages is to compensate the plaintiff for the loss or damage that flowed from the defendant’s breach of duty of care owed.Such loss or damages is quantified by the judge hearing the case to compensate the plaintiff not only for their actual loss but for their future potential loss as well. Application After diagnosing of Tony’s mouth, it was certified that there was a severe infection in Tony’s gum that was shown in tests to be caused by the method of fitting of the artificial teeth. In fact, as David decided to use the dental glue, instead of the traditional method that was recommended by the leading dentist.And David, who is the reasonable person, owned the duty of care of Tony. According to the fact, Tony not only suffers variety of physical damage but also physiological damage. He became depressed due to his appearance and loss of work, and is seeing a counsellor for therapy who suggested him to go for a holiday. Therefore, he had suffered the medical and dental expense total $ 14, 000, loss of wages $ 12,00 0, and counselling$1,800. And the cost of trip is $ 5,000. Conclusion: Therefore, Tony’s damage directly resulted from David’ breach of duty of care.If He in civil proceedings is successful, a remedy will be rewarded as compensation of dental expense $ 14, 000, loss of wages $ 12,000, and counselling$1,800. And the cost of trip is $ 5,000. What is more, he could DEFENCES TO AN ACTION IN NEGLIGENCE Issue Are there any defences available to defendant (David or the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery)? Rules Defences to an action in negligence: * Contributory negligence: It occurs where the plaintiff can be held partly to blame for the loss sustained as result of a failure to take reasonable care against a foreseeable risk of injury.This rule has been modified by statue in Section 26 of the Wrong Act 1958 3(Vic. ): Where any person suffers damages as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damage recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage. Voluntary assumption of risk: if a person assumes the risk of injury voluntarily, this is complete defence to a claim of negligence. It is difficult defence to rise as it must be proved that the plaintiff was aware of the risk and accepted that risk freely. Application After checking Tony’s x-rays, David extracted the teeth and put the artificial teeth in place. However, David was not familiar with the accepted method of attaching artificial teeth recommended by leading dentists and instead attached them by way of strong dental glue.However, it was David determined to use the strong dental glue instead of the method recommended by the leading dentist. On the other side, Tony should figure out that his met hod is different from the one which recommended by the leading dentist, and he should do some more consulting of the new method which was going to be used in his surgery. Conclusion Therefore, Tony did contribute to his damage as he did not check his new method which causes the inflection and further damage.

Vespucci, Columbus, and the New World

Before Columbus passed through the coastline of larger America, Amerigo Vespucci, whom the name America has derived, first came in. He navigated, explored, observed, made a map according to what he perceived, and made an exploration report to his King about it. In his description, we can notice a typical European character on the way he view people, environment and things. He wrote his observation on a negative perspective such as the Native Americans has no dress, no sense of ownership, no existing law, no religion, no morals, no ethics, and basically no culture.In this statement, it gave a connotation that those native inhabitants were complete bare beings, which exactly the same description of people at the back of his head as he wanted to conquer the land believing that it was his new found world for the Europeans. As we analyze Amerigo’s text, we can understand how he wanted to introduce those natives to his monarch as insignificant people. Perhaps, his intention was to g et full support from their King and Queen as they planned to completely renew their discovered land and afterwards conquer to make them own.Christopher Columbus, 1530 Unlike Amerigo’s negative introduction about the Native Americans, Columbus has a more affirmative remark on their personalities. He said that these indigenous people of America were peaceful, calm, friendly, warm, handsome and of well-built body structure. However, the presence of negativity has also transcended in his text when he described their lifestyle as having no knowledge and totally ignorance about arms made of irons as the natives’ spears were only made of woods and cane.Another unpleasant testimonial was when he stated that these natives are vulnerable and ideal to become slaves, and that with only few of Europeans could make these people defeated. We can view that those positive and negative remarks of Columbus was urged by the same intention with Amerigo, which is to persuade the monarchs an d allow them conquer the land to be the new colony of Europeans especially Portuguese. The New WorldBoth the Portuguese’s monarchs and the American natives were properly introduced by the so-called New World. Both Columbus and Vespucci has established and proposed this thought to them. To Vespucci, he thought that he discovered a world with nothing to have at all. He didn’t recognize or perhaps, he intentionally did not want to recognize the existing norm and culture of the natives because he wanted to make a change by himself and made a suggestion have the European culture on the land as a replacement on the existing norm.His idea was that Europeans like them are advanced and superior in all aspects, which means that they are the only ones capable of transforming the land and society into a much more highly regarded culture. To Columbus, he indicated that a New World has to be set by offering material things to the natives in exchange of their freedom, strength and se rvice being servants. However, his intention was not to upgrade the culture of the natives but to totally eliminate their culture for the betterment of the Europeans.

Life of Har Gobind Khorana Nucleic Acid Pioneer

Har Gobind Khorana (January 9, 1922 - November 9, 2011) demonstrated the role of nucleotides in the synthesis of proteins. He shared the 1968 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine with Marshall Nirenberg and Robert Holley. He is also credited with being the first researcher to produce the first complete synthetic gene. Fast Facts: Har Gobind Khorana Full Name: Har Gobind KhoranaKnown For: Research showing the role of nucleotides in the synthesis of proteins and the first artificial synthesis of a complete gene.Born: January 9, 1922 in Raipur, Punjab, British India (now Pakistan)  Parents: Krishna Devi and Ganpat Rai KhoranaDied: November 9, 2011 in Concord, Massachusetts, USA  Education: Ph.D., University of LiverpoolKey Accomplishments: Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1968  Spouse: Esther Elizabeth SiblerChildren: Julia Elizabeth, Emily Anne, and Dave Roy Early Years Har Gobind Khorana was likely born to Krishna Devi and Ganpat Rai Khorana on January 9, 1922. While that is his officially recorded date of birth, there is some uncertainty as to whether or not that was his exact date of birth. He had four siblings and was the youngest of the five children. His father was a taxation clerk. While the family was poor, his parents realized the value of educational attainment and Ganpat Rai Khorana ensured that his family was literate. By some accounts, they were the only literate family in the area. Khorana attended the D.A.V. High School and then matriculated to Punjab University where he earned both a Bachelors (1943) and a Masters degree (1945). He distinguished himself in both instances and graduated with honors for each degree. Subsequently he was awarded a fellowship from the government of India. He used the fellowship to earn his Ph.D. in 1948 from the University of Liverpool in England. After earning his degree he worked in a postdoctoral position in Switzerland under the tutelage of Vladimir Prelog. Prelog would greatly influence Khorana. He also completed additional post-doctoral work at Cambridge University in England. He studied both nucleic acids and proteins while at Cambridge. During his time in Switzerland, he met and married Esther Elizabeth Sibler in 1952. Their union produced three children, Julia Elizabeth, Emily Anne, and Dave Roy. Career and Research In 1952, Khorana moved to Vancouver, Canada where he took a job with the British Columbia Research Council. The facilities were not expansive, but the researchers had freedom to pursue their interests. During this time he worked on research involving both nucleic acids and phosphate esters. In 1960, Khorana accepted a position at the Institute for Enzyme Research at the University of Wisconsin, where he was the co-director. He became the Conrad A. Elvehjem Professor of the Life Sciences at the University of Wisconsin in 1964. Khorana became an American citizen in 1966. In 1970, he became the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Biology and Chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In 1974, he became the Andrew D. White Professor (at-large) at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Order of Nucleotides Discovery The freedom that began in Canada at the British Columbia Research Council in the 1950s was instrumental to Khoranas later discoveries related to nucleic acids. Along with others, he helped to explain the role of nucleotides in the construction of proteins. The fundamental building block of DNA is the nucleotide. The nucleotides in DNA contain four different nitrogenous bases: thymine, cytosine, adenine, and guanine. Cytosine and thymine are pyrimidines while adenine and guanine are purines. RNA is similar but uracil is used instead of thymine. Scientists realized that DNA and RNA were involved in amino acid assembly into proteins, but the exact processes by which it all worked were not yet known. Nirenberg and Matthaei had created a synthetic RNA that always added the amino acid phenylalanine to a linked amino acid strand. If they synthesized RNA with three uracils together, the amino acids produced were always just phenylalanine. They had discovered the first triplet codon. By this time, Khorana was an expert in polynucleotide synthesis. His research group availed themselves of his expertise to show which combinations of nucleotides form which amino acids. They proved that the genetic code is always transmitted in a set of three codons. They also noted that some codons tell the cell to start making a protein while others tell it to stop making a protein. Their work explained a number of facets of how the genetic code works. In addition to showing that three nucleotides specified an amino acid, their work showed what direction mRNA was read, that the specific codons do not overlap, and that RNA was the  intermediary between the genetic information in DNA and the amino acid sequence in specific proteins. This was the basis of the work for which Khorana, along with Marshall Nirenberg and Robert Holley, was awarded the 1968 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. Synthetic Gene Discovery In the 1970s, Khoranas lab completed the artificial synthesis of a yeast gene. It was the first artificial synthesis of a complete gene. Many hailed this synthesis as a major hallmark in the field of molecular biology. This artificial synthesis paved the way for more advanced methods that would follow. Death and Legacy Khorana received a great number of awards during his lifetime. The foremost was the aforementioned Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1968. He was also awarded the National Medal of Science, the Ellis Island Medal of Honor and the Lasker Foundation Award for Basic Medical Research. He was awarded the Merck Award and the American Chemical Society Award for Work in Organic Chemistry. He earned a number of honorary degrees from universities in India, England, Canada, as well as in the United States. Over the course of his career, he authored or co-authored over 500 publications/articles in various scientific journals. Har Gobind Khorana died of natural causes in Concord, Massachusetts on November 9, 2011. He was 89 years old. His wife, Esther, and one of his daughters, Emily Anne preceded him in death. Sources â€Å"The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1968.† NobelPrize.org, www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1968/khorana/biographical/.Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. â€Å"Har Gobind Khorana.† Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 12 Dec. 2017, www.britannica.com/biography/Har-Gobind-Khorana.