Author: admin

THE CASE OF THE GIFT OR NOT!
Ruben, age ninety, had a very valuable violin collection consisting of 10 violins, cases and bows. He was frail and was helped by a niece Sahar, who was an excellent violinist. Two weeks after making a new will, Ruben told his niece that he was going to give her the violin collection. “It’s yours,” he said, adding that he would temporarily hold on to the collection for safekeeping. Sahar happily accepted. That same day he also sent Sahar a letter in which he said, “I give you my violin collection, and when I die, it will be yours.”
Ruben died five weeks later. In his will dated prior to the letter, which did not refer to the violins, he left his entire estate to his two children. Sahar brought suit against the estate to have the violin collection declared her property.
The Trial
Sahar testified at the trial about the help she had given her uncle over a period of fifteen years. She produced the letter her uncle had sent her and recalled their many conversations during which her uncle had promised to give her the violins. There was additional testimony that Ruben’s children had never even picked up a violin and had been estranged from their father for years.
The Arguments at Trial
Sahar’s attorney argued that the collection belonged to Sahar because Ruben had gifted the violins to her during his lifetime and that there was symbolic delivery. He further argued that Ruben’s keeping possession of the violins was solely to protect them and in no way invalidated the gift. He also argued that to deprive Sahar of the collection that her uncle obviously wanted to give her would be against Ruben’s wishes.
The children’s attorney argued that the will was validly executed after the letter was sent and promises made orally or in writing do not constitute valid gifts. They further argued that actual and not symbolic delivery is an essential requirement for a gift to be deemed valid.
Questions to Discuss
Who has the stronger argument, Sahar or Ruben’s children? Why?
If you were the jury hearing this case, for whom would you decide? Why?
Should considerations of fairness and the intentions of the person making the will take precedence over a validly executed will?
What problems do you think could arise if oral or written promises were considered under the circumstances of this case?

Wanda is the owner of a small business, Salty Pawz, which makes and sells gourmet dog treats. One afternoon, Wanda sees a news story that reports on the recall of a well-known brand of dog treats that have sickened and even killed several dogs. Wanda is horrified and worries about the safety of her own treats. Wanda is very careful about her manufacturing process and only uses high-quality ingredients that come from sustainable farms. Still, these headlines make her nervous. If this well-known brand could make a mistake, could she? What if a batch of her Chicken Cuties is somehow contaminated and a dog dies from eating them?
Wanda comes to you for advice, not because you are an attorney, but because you know something about the legal environment of business and are concerned about her potential liability. To give Wanda as much help as possible, you will need to conduct research on the legal and regulatory environment for the dog treat industry. Once you have completed that research and have reviewed your course materials, you will be prepared to answer the following questions for Wanda:
What are some of the legal consequences that Wanda and the business could experience if a dog did get sick or even die from a treat?
How can Wanda protect herself and the business against lawsuits?
In addition to legal concerns related to dogs getting sick from Wanda’s treats, what other legal concerns exist for Wanda? Think about tort law, contract law, intellectual property law, and consumer protection law.