In order to determine who can potentially claim the eggs and propose damages, the following issues must be addressed: 1. Brendy and Wendy: How does the legal relationship between Brenda and Wendy affect their ability to claim the eggs as personal property? a) Gift: Did Brenda intend to give Wendy full beneficial interest in the eggs, constituting a gift? b) Trust: Did Brenda intend to retain interest through a resulting trust? 2. Wendy and Deb: What interest, if any, did Wendy confer on Deb when she gave her the eggs? Gift or Conversion: In giving the eggs to Deb, did Wendy give a gift or is she liable for conversion? 3. Ruth’s Claim as Finder: whether Ruth’s actions fulfill the requirements to constitute a finding, entitling her to the eggs. …show more content…
In the absence of clear indica of a gift, it will be difficult for Wendy to claim full beneficial ownership. Hoiland v. Brown 1980 B.C.L.R. clarifies that there is a “heavy onus upon a claimant” of a gift “without consideration” at Canadian common law. If the eggs were a gift, it appears they were given without consideration as there is no evidence in the facts that clearly indicated a gift. In the absence of consideration, the eggs may still constitute a valid gift if Wendy is able to prove that Brenda’s intention included the full transfer of interest and title to …show more content…
Monetary value is however indicative of property as evidenced by Yanner v. Eaton’s example of debt as property. The initial issues in Hoiland v. Brown similarly regard the deliberation of whether a chattel “left in the possession” of another for their “use” constituted a gift or a resulting trust. While the chattel in Hoiland was found to constitute a gift, it can be distinguished from the facts at hand because the claimant satisfied the onus to prove that “there was indicia of a gift.” A contributing factor to this finding was that the chattel had never been in possession of the purchaser. In contract to the fact of this case, Brenda did have possession of the eggs both before and after the purchase. They were put in her cart, paid for and subsequently retained by Brenda. It is only after the eggs were put in Brenda’s car and driven to Wendy’s apartment that the eggs were relinquished from Brenda’s possession into the care of Wendy. When the eggs Brenda purchased were left in the possession of Wendy Brenda gave the impression that they were for her use but, as indicated above, never indicated the intent to transfer full title and beneficial interest to Wendy. Supported by persuasive case law found in Yanner, it seems Brenda’s actions imply that she intends to hold beneficial interest proportionate to her
The argument begins when the man arrived after the two mile walk from the store without the woman’s anticipated coffee. Instead of the coffee the man held a 24 foot rope. The man did not drink coffee and that must be, according to the woman, why it was forgotten. The woman wondered, “What was the rope for?” The man could not think of anything, at the moment that the rope could be used for, in addition, the woman discovered the eggs had been broken, apparently when the rope had been laid on top of the them. The rope argument escalated and hate prevailed and worked it’s way into other surface issues, household chores,
Tooher, Joycey, ‘Jubilant Jamie and the Elephant Egg: Acquisition of Title by Finding’ (1998) 6 Australian Property Law Journal 117
Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for contract damages measured by injury to the promisee.” (2011)
Finally, Mayzie had sat on the egg for a while. Quoting from the story, Mayzie says, “I’m tired and I’m bored and I’ve kinks in my leg. From sitting, just sitting here day after day.” In comparison to reality, this would be a bird’s form of maternity leave. Poor Mayzie desperately needed a break, and when she finally grasped the opportunity of one, she took full advantage of one. With those statements, Mayzie should have full custody of the
a. The priest, Mrs. McIntyre, and Mrs. Shortley comment on the peacock. Explain what their comments reveal about themselves and their moral perception.
A) MSTT will assist Christine in clarifying if her expectations for Calysta have change since she has turned 18 years old
Many studies have been done pertaining to egg donation and its medical aspect, but very few studies shows the ethical implications of egg donations. Health Laws such as Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act,1992 regulates the advertisement of success rate of fertility clinic. Only few states have federal laws for informed consent from egg donors (1-3). Informed consent means that donor understands all the minor details surrounding the egg donation procedure, its side-effects- medical, legal, ethical and emotional and gives permission to undergo the procedure without hesitation or coercion.
I think many people often find a “bad egg” and assume that entire “carton”, or population, is also a bunch of “bad eggs.” But
1. In “Feather’s,” the somewhat silent and solemn dinner the two couples share impacts Jack and Fran’s lives, as that night transpires into an attempted “change” within their marriage. While Fran pinpoints that evening as an immediate shift, Jack believes the change came later, after their child was born. Jack recalls, “The change came later—and when it came, it was like something that happened to other people, not something that could have happened to us” (Carver). Throughout the dinner, the author parallels Jack and Fran to Bud and Olla. Together, Bud and Olla exhibit characteristics that Jack and Fran’s relationship lacks: love, affection and the family they have created with Joey and Harold. Jack and Fran strive for this type of bond, and although they attempt to achieve it after being given a glimpse at the dinner, they fall short. As much as Jack and Fran want to aspire to be like Bud and Olla, they never reach that next level. They are never able to utilize the peacock feathers.
Q3. “‘ You all want a soft- boiled egg?’ she asked. The boys looked at each other. She didn’t change rhythm on them. They didn’t want an egg, but they did want to be with her, to go inside the wine house of this lady who had one earring, no navel and looked like a tall black tree”’ (Morrison 39).
A. (The teacher explains rules to the game, and then walks two volunteers through a couple of rounds until students feel comfortable).
...rence Etherton). The evidentiary requirements for the two concepts are different and it can be said that the constructive trust is more difficult to prove. Furthermore, depending on the facts of the case coupled with statutory provisions, either of the doctrine may prove to be more relevant in order to achieve the general aim that was identified at the beginning of the essay, which is the recognition of real property rights informally created .
...fertile people really want to have a baby, they should not look for the perfect egg. The money is not the necessary thing to include in the egg donation. Egg sellers can donate their egg without profit only if they want to help infertile people. Egg buyers can get any one egg from the donated eggs, so they cannot choose the best egg. Egg is a first step to develop as an embryo. It is a living being that becomes a human. People should treat an egg properly because it has a right to be treated equally and preciously. If people objectify an egg, they don’t deserve a baby, and they cannot become good parents. Egg donors also do not deserve money and cannot be a good donor if they don’t treat egg rightly. Good donors have a responsibility to have a right purpose of donating their eggs. Good parents have a responsibility to take care of an egg as a precious living thing.
The two females noticed everything around and questioned everything. The find a bird cage and wondered if she owned a bird and it not, what was the bird cage for. Ms. Peters and Mrs. Hale find the bird and notice that the neck had been twisted. Mrs. Hale states how all the women live close together but feel far apart, they all go through the same thing. George Henderson, The County Attorney says that all these things the woman found and were about to take, weren’t relevant to the crime scene because they were things that weren’t dangerous, in other words I believe that he said these things were unrelated to anything that happened that night, because they were things that belonged to a women or mainly because there were small things that during the 20th century wouldn’t hurt a man or a man wouldn’t let himself be taken down, by something so irrelevant. At the end of the story the women conclude that Mr. Wright, killed Mr. Wright the same way he had killed her bird. Mrs. Hale and Ms. Peter decide to hide what they had uncovered about the event that took place that night Mr. Wright was killed. In my opinion the reason they decided to hide all this information was because like they said Mrs. Wright was very happy and her husband was very
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...