if you say something is a gift is that full entitlement?

euser1984

or can i ask for it back, thanks

phildin

It's full entitlement, you can ask for it back if you like but they have no reason to entertain doing so.

GM228

phildin wrote: »

It's full entitlement, you can ask for it back if you like but they have no reason to entertain doing so.

Incorrect, there is a presumption of resulting trust on gifts, i.e the person who gave the gift retains ownership unless the "gift" is purchased by the receiver or the doctrine of advancement applies.

euser1984

GM228 wrote: »

Incorrect, there is a presumption of resulting trust on gifts, i.e the person who gave the gift retains ownership unless the "gift" is purchased by the receiver or the doctrine of advancement applies.

have you any examples? thank you very much

does that apply even if you said it was a gift to the other person

euser1984

or can you point to what law it's in? thanks

Mr. Incognito

There's no legislation around it per se other than case law.

If it was expressed to be a gift then it is unconditionally given

If it was given with conditions then it is not a "gift" and the conditions would have to be made clear at the time of giving.

redbel05

Where an engaged couple is given gifts, there is a presumption that the will return the gifts should the engagement end, if requested. This would also apply to gifts given to each other, including engagement rings, although they can contest this presumption in court, if they have evidence to the contrary.

redbel05

Where an engaged couple is given gifts, there is a presumption that the will return the gifts should the engagement end, if requested. This would also apply to gifts given to each other, including engagement rings, although they can contest this presumption in court, if they have evidence to the contrary.

Roadtoad

Google Sir Alex Ferguson +John Magnier +racehorse Rock Of Gibraltar for a good old fisticuffs on gifts.

euser1984

i gave someone money and then stated a condition

"t's just a gift - want to get you on board - my concept is similar to the first employees at google having got shares"

he did everything to the contrary and made me believe he was doing what i wanted him to do.

seamus

redbel05 wrote: »

Where an engaged couple is given gifts, there is a presumption that the will return the gifts should the engagement end, if requested. This would also apply to gifts given to each other, including engagement rings, although they can contest this presumption in court, if they have evidence to the contrary.

That is a very specific and well-trodden path though. The engagement ring is assumed to include the condition that a marriage will follow, and if it doesn't the ring goes back.

There's never any disagreement in court about whether that implied condition exists - the argument is always that it wasn't an engagement ring, it was just a ring.

In the OP's last post, I'm not entirely clear on the circumstances, but it would seem to fall more into employment law than basic contract law. If you've employed a person and then given them a bonus based on performance, then you'll find it difficult to argue that it's a private gift with implied conditions. If you've handed over the money but failed to write the conditions into an employment contract, you're on a difficult footing.

euser1984

seamus wrote: »

That is a very specific and well-trodden path though. The engagement ring is assumed to include the condition that a marriage will follow, and if it doesn't the ring goes back.

There's never any disagreement in court about whether that implied condition exists - the argument is always that it wasn't an engagement ring, it was just a ring.

(by this do you mean an often attempted argument that fails?

seamus wrote: »

In the OP's last post, I'm not entirely clear on the circumstances, but it would seem to fall more into employment law than basic contract law. If you've employed a person and then given them a bonus based on performance, then you'll find it difficult to argue that it's a private gift with implied conditions. If you've handed over the money but failed to write the conditions into an employment contract, you're on a difficult footing.

nothing to do with employment law at all, just an agreement to get involved with a project via email with the above statement; that statement given after the money was received
[/QUOTE]

seamus

euser1984 wrote: »

by this do you mean an often attempted argument that fails?

No, I mean that nobody ever argues that an engagement ring doesn't have implied conditions, because they will lose. They try to argue that it was just a ring, not an engagement ring. And therefore came with no implied conditions.

nothing to do with employment law at all, just an agreement to get involved with a project via email with the above statement; that statement given after the money was received

It still though sounds more in the corporate sphere than the individual one.
The fact that the money was handed over before the conditions were clear would harm any assertion that it came with conditions - the recipient should have the opportunity to refuse the gift and reject the conditions.

Either way, talk to a solicitor to find out what your options are. Posting messages in half-code online is never going to get you advice appropriate to your situation.

coylemj

Roadtoad wrote: »

Google Sir Alex Ferguson +John Magnier +racehorse Rock Of Gibraltar for a good old fisticuffs on gifts.

I don't think that ever went to a hearing so there is no legal legacy arising out of the dispute.

My understanding of the background is that it was basically a mutually beneficial publicity stunt whereby it was claimed that Alex Ferguson and Susan (wife of John) Magnier owned the horse and the horse raced in the 'colours' of Alex Ferguson.

Matters came to a head when the horse retired from racing. Fergie had it in his head that he would get a 'nomination' whereby he could sell a slot in the stallion's annual diary to cover a mare, a valuable asset and, for Fergie, a nice pension. Magnier was adamant that he had zero entitlement and it was settled privately.

Victor

About the engagement rings http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1981/act/22/section/4/enacted/en/html

4.—Where a party to an agreement to marry makes a gift of property (including an engagement ring) to the other party, it shall be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the gift—

(a) was given subject to the condition that it should be returned at the request of the donor or his personal representative if the marriage does not take place for any reason other than the death of the donor, or

(b) was given unconditionally, if the marriage does not take place on account of the death of the donor.

4ensic15

This is the case on resulting trusts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re_Vandervell_Trustees_Ltd_(No_2)

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

Incorrect, there is a presumption of resulting trust on gifts, i.e the person who gave the gift retains ownership unless the "gift" is purchased by the receiver or the doctrine of advancement applies.

I see. And you have authority for this proposition, counsellor?

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

I see. And you have authority for this proposition, counsellor?

Authority for? The presumption? It is well established under common law.

Edit: On re-reading my post I don't think the wording was great and below may be a more accurate statement?

Incorrect, there is a presumption of resulting trust on property, i.e the person who gave you the property retains ownership unless the it is purchased by the receiver or the doctrine of advancement applies or the presumption is otherwise rebutted.

Would you agree?

Peregrinus

For the proposition that "there is a presumption of resulting trust on gifts".

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

For the proposition that "there is a presumption of resulting trust on gifts".

I tought so and edited my post, "gift" was a bad choice, property is more correct, it will be based on the intention of those giving the gift (even if unexpressed but presumed) and any benefit to be given by the gift I suppose.

Peregrinus

Well, can you restate the proposition in terms you are comfortable with, and offer authority for it?

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, can you restate the proposition in terms you are comfortable with, and offer authority for it?

Resulting trusts can be said to arise by implication and are founded on the unexpressed but presumed intention of the settlor as per Delaney, Equity and the Law of Trusts in Ireland: 4th Ed.. The presumption will arise if there is an absence of intent to pass ownership even with a gift because we rarely say "here's a gift for you to take ownership of".

Williams vs Williams [1863] 12 Beav 360 deals with the presumption concerning gifts and weather a gift was intended or not, statements or actions at the time or before giving the gift can rebut the presumption depending on statements or actions made (and obviously the presumption of advancement can rebut the presumption).

Correct me if I'm wrong, I find the subject very interesting and whilst I have a fair idea of this area of law I'll admit it is far from my usual area of expertise.

Peregrinus

Precisely because we rarely say "here's a gift for you to take ownership of", the absence of the words "for you to take ownership of" does not give rise to a presumption of a resulting trust. Those words are ordinarily implicit in the concept of "gift". A resulting trust will arise where:

- The gift is limited expressly or by implication. ("Here's some money for you to buy Blackacre"; you are able to buy Blackacre for less than the amount given; resulting trust in my favour for the amount that you don't need.)

- The gift is incomplete. ("Here's a house for you to live in for the rest of your life", but I say nothing about what happens afterwards; resulting trust of the reversion in the house for me.)

- The gift fails. ("Here's some money to pay your college fees." You fail to matriculate.)

But a simple "Here's some money", in the absence of special circumstances from which a resulting trust can be implied, will usually be construed as an outright gift.

A resulting trust is implied from the donor's intention, but there needs to be some evidence or circumstance to suggest that that is his intention. The default is an outright gift. If this were not the case, nobody would ever have to pay CAT on a gift but, sadly, they do have to.