The testatrix , by her will directed her executors to allow any of her “friends” to buy her collection of paintings at below market value. The question arose whether the word "friends" was sufficiently certain.

Browne-Wilkinson J, construed the direction as a "series of individual gift subjects to a condition precedent" and held that the executor was not required to determine a class of donees defined by the term “friends”, but rather, any person who could satisfy the criteria of “friend”  , he laid down 3 minimum criteria for “friend”: 

a) it's a social relationship, as opposed to business 

 b) relationship must be a long standing one

c) they must frequently meet if circumstances permits. 

Re Barlow’s established that court takes a more relax approach in determining the criteria vague terms for a “gift subject to condition precedent”.

Note:

1. "old friend" was cited as example of what would be considered as conceptually uncertain by Lord UpJohn in Re Gulbenkian.

2. Re Barlow's WT was criticized by Emery  (1982) 98 LQR , that the direction on the will should have been construed as power conferred on trustee to sell to any of the testatrix’s friends and would probably failed for conceptual uncertainty. (note: the test for certainty of object is the same as discretionary trust )