|
Posted by Dick Adams on June 21, 2008, 1:41 am
Please log in for more thread options
>>>> The case I could come up with on quick research for the California rule
>>>> is exemplified in Board of Regents v. Davis, 74 Cal.App.3d 862 (1977),
>>> In that case there was a quid pro quo, naming of a football stadium.
>>> Also, it was an action against the estate of the person who had made
>>> the pledge before kicking the bucket. The case seems to have revolved
>>> around whether the decedent was competent to have made the pledge.
>>> IOW, the heirs were trying to defeat the intent of the decedent and
>>> failed.
>>>
>>> I'm not persuaded that a California resident after having made a
>>> promise of a gift could not successfully renege on that promise.
>> Stuart is right. We learned it in law school, and I am not
>> going to do your legal research for you.
> <<Shrug>> I just love those "I know something you don't know"
> answers. Well, I learned just the opposite in my undergraduate
> commercial law class -- something about consideration in the
> chapter on contracts.
Actually they are both right. If you still have your contract
law text book, you can look it up. Stu is citing the case of
Davis who pledged $150K to his alma mater and they named the
football stadium after him. That's the quid pro quo. Upon
his death eight months later, his heirs wanted to renege.
Stu later mentions that California Courts are predisposed to
enforcing pledges even when they lack consideration.
> I haven't heard anything about William & Mary going to court
> to get the money pledged by people who reneged over the cross
> in Wren Chapel dust up. There were significant dollars
> involved (7+ figures to the left of the decimal point) unlike
> the next example.
For those who are unaware, a William & Mary alum withdrew a
$12M pledge after then President Nichol had the Cross in Wren
Chapel removed so that the Chapel would be "a welcoming place
for people of all faiths". Nichol is no longer President, the
Cross is now displayed on least Sundays, and there are some
elected officals is VA who are very pi$$ed off about this. As
for taking this to Court, it happened about a year and a half
ago and I am certain the Board of the University is engaged in
diplomacy with the alum.
> And, VCU didn't come after me when I changed employers and
> thus stopped having amounts pledged to them withheld from
> my paycheck.
Did VCU give you consideration for the pledge?
Did VCU take significant financial measures in reliance
on your pledge?
Going back to Contract Law, even verbal contracts are binding
when one party relies upon it to their financial detriment.
> But maybe Virginia law is different or maybe Virginia
> institutions have better sense than to try to enforce
> unfulfilled monetary pledges.
Neither is likely correct.
Dick
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap