To: Senior partner
From: John Doe, the trustee in bankruptcy for Bernard Nadoff.
Date: 9th March 2021
Subject: Evaluation of whether Baird can get the sculpture back.
I am writing to evaluate whether Baird can get back the sculpture back; the gift that was given to Nadoff by Bill Baird was never completed, but it was a conditional one. Since the pick is auctioning off many personal possessions belonging to Nadoff, it is supposed to consider that the gift was a conditional and not a completed one.
In a legal sense, gift refers to a definite and voluntary transfer of property from one person to the other. A gift transfer is done without any considerations such as receiving composition in return. In our case, Baird wanted to win the sculpture back; this means that it was not a gift. There are various elements of proof for a gift; the 1st element is the capacity of the donor; the donor giving the gift must have the legal ability to make a gift. The law requires them to be 18 years and above and to be of sound mind. In our case, Baird sent her daughter to give the sculpture, she is only fifteen years old, this means that she cannot present a gift since she is underage; the statue was, therefore, not a gift. The 2nd element is intent; the donor must prove the transfer of gift through statements, writing, and conduct. In our case, there were no writing and behavior to show that the sculpture is a gift. The 3rd element is delivery to the donee; the gift delivery can be symbolic or implied via conduct. There was no conduct in this case. The 4th element is acceptance by the donee; the gift must be accepted affirmatively by the done without any undue influence or coercion, and this was not met in our case.
The transfer of the sculpture didn’t meet the above requirements as required in the legal sense. The sculpture, therefore, cannot be classified as a gift. Baird didn’t intend to make the sculpture transfer as a gift, and according to the law, Baird can claim the sculpture back.