What is the legal test for a disclaimer under s. 99(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act?

The disclaimer (paragraph 2 above) signed by the bankrupt is in conformity with the wording of the section referring to; “for value received the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged.” The issue outstanding is of course what was the bankrupt paid and by whom? Section 99 is part of our legislative scheme to protect “equity’s darling” i.e. an unknowing (good faith) purchaser for value. It is not in place to be used for unknown purposes by unknown parties or indeed as an “engine of fraud.” No third party is before this court claiming that a transaction must be given full effect or they will suffer loss. The wording of s. 99 is clear in stating that, in certain instances, the rights of third parties are protected as against the trustee. In the court’s opinion there is nothing in the section which protects or is meant to protect the bankrupt against the trustee (Wallace v. U.G.G.). The learned authors Houlden and Morawetz in the 1999 annotation of the BIA cite under s. FS 112 (page 392) five requirements that a transaction must satisfy to be protected under s. 99(1). In the court’s opinion the above reasons demonstrate that several of these requirements have not been met. There is no evidence that the disclaimer made by the bankrupt was in good faith nor that he received value.