On March 6, Colt Manufacturing, a handgun manufacturer, sponsored a farewell din

Question

On March 6, Colt Manufacturing, a handgun manufacturer, sponsored a farewell dinner for one of its officers, Marc Fontane. At the dinner, two Colt officials presented Fontane with a .45 caliber Colt revolver. After the presentation an agent of Colt's took possession of the revolver for the purpose of improving it by installing ivory grips and adding engraving. Fontane inquired over a period of months as to when he would receive the revolver and was ultimately told that "the gun has been sold and there will be no replacement." Fontane sued Colt for the conversion of the gift with the promised improvements with a value of $8,155. The employer asserts that there was no completed gift because there was no delivery. Decide.

Explanation / Answer

Provision of the Law :

As per law the gift is a voluntary transfer of property from one person( Donor ) to another ( Donee) without consideration. In order to make a valid Gift , the following three elements should be there :

i) Intention of the donor to donate

ii) Delivery of Gift to donee

iii) Acceptance of Gift by donee.

Fact of the case :

In the given case , the employer has a very well intention to give a gift to Marc Fontane hence we can say the first element was present. On the basis information given we can say that the delivery has been made to Marc, though subsequently the possession has been handed over to the Agents of employer. So prima facie the goods has been delivered to Marc which has been subsequently hand over to agents , hence we can say that the second essential element to make a valid gift is present. As far as acceptance of Gift is concern cocncern the same has been immidiately accepted by Marc and hence all the essentail elements of valid gift has been present. As the all Essential elements has been present as per law the ownership is Gun has been transfered to Marc.

Conclusion : By keeping in mind the above mentioned provisio n of law and fact of the case we can concluded that Marc can very well sue his ex employer and the contention of Employer will not be tenable in th eyes of law.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse O
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.