Talk:Gift (law)

Present/Gift

The part that reads "The grantor of the gift must have a present intent..." is confusing because although I think present here means current it can also mean gift. Ewlyahoocom 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

++ giftor intent ++ The words "giftor intent" do not indicate a formal undertaking. The treatment of a gift as a tool. This contradicts the articles preliminary statement that a gift does not require reciprocity. There must be some term set to the gift that is held out for something in return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.53.5 (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Present intent" is a term of art, that means that the intent exists at the time the gift was made. Once a gift is fully made, with intent, delivery to the recipient, and acceptance by the recipient, the gift is complete and title in the property transfers to the recipient. If the "gift" is given for something in return, it is not a gift but a sale, and there are numerous grounds to void a sale if the other party does not perform. bd2412 T 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• The article doesnt talk about the Inheritence Tax (IHT) levied on Gifts for UK taxpayers for UK assets. Payment of Inheritance Tax is mandatory if grantor dies within 7 years after gifting. The cover for this kind of uncertainty is known as "Gift Inter Vivos Cover" and is generally offered as decreasing Term Assuance by most of the Life Companies in UK. The cover decreases in line with the Tapering benefits. It remains constant for first 3 years and decreases to 80%, 60%, 40% & 20% in 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th year respectively post the gift year. It ceases to exist after 7th year completed. Its the best way to fund the IHT payment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Go4satyam (talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Revoking of gifts

It's not strictly true that you can't demand return of a gift. Actually, there is a legal precedent saying that, at least in some cases, the giftor can demand return of the gift; see http://www.traversecityfamilylaw.com/Documents/Meyer_v_Mitnick.pdf for details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.12.198 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This case actually refers to a future gift, since while the engagement ring is given before the wedding, the gifting happens in fact only because of the wedding (conditional). Therefore, it is a future gift, which can be revoked. --Txwikinger (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The engagement ring issue is a whole other beast. It is a well known exception to the revoke/consideration/condition rule. tallgaloot (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Global issues

This article describes some legal system as if the rules were global. There is a great deal of variation, e.g. in Sweden, Norway and Denmark promises of a future gift are binding (under some conditions) and in Sweden a gift can be reclaimed if e.g. some important condition isn't met by the donee. Also, renumerative gifts are often not considered gifts at all. At the very least, the text could use som qualifiers.Sjö (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Intention

There seem to have been some cases recently where someone has by accident transferred money from one account to a wrong one because he spelt the name wrongly. The banks have claimed that the money could not be recovered though the person who benefited was known. Was this because it was deemed to be a gift? On the other hand, when a bank makes a faulty transfer they seem to be able to just take the money back. Is it necessary that the donor intends the transfer to be a gift a necessary part of it being a gift?

john f2.30.131.162 (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)