Certainty of subject matter: unallocated generic goods (Re Goldcorp)

An express trust needs certainty of subject matter: it must be possible to identify the property the trust attaches to. In Re Goldcorp the Privy Council held that buyers of unallocated bullion acquired no proprietary interest, legal or equitable, because no bullion had ever been ascertained and appropriated to their contracts. The seller's freedom to source the goods anywhere meant the sales were of generic goods, not goods from an identified bulk. Even assuming the company intended a trust, there was never a separate stock to which it could attach, and the remaining stock was simply another company asset. Applied here, no coins were set aside for any customer and Sterling Vault could meet orders from any source. The promise that coins were 'stored on your behalf' cannot create a title to goods nobody can identify. The customers are therefore unsecured creditors with personal claims only, and the bank's crystallised charge takes priority over the remaining coins.

Why A is wrong: A proportionate share in a shifting stock is exactly what Goldcorp rejected: the contracts were for generic goods, not a share of an identified bulk.

Why B is wrong: The Board refused to impose a lien or remedial proprietary right to defeat the bank's valid security.

Why D is wrong: Order of payment is irrelevant where no customer ever acquired any proprietary interest in the coins.

Why E is wrong: Calling the company a fiduciary adds nothing: a fiduciary relationship cannot create a proprietary interest where there is no identifiable property.