Flowers are indeed given as a sign of love and appreciation or to send a noted message to them. In our case, Scott chose to spend his own money to buy flowers for Mary since he knew he was expecting the same amount from Jack, who had promised to give the amount once he had received the reward from Mary. It is rightful for Jack to pay Scott the $50 he had sworn on the delivery of the message. I'm not contented with the amount of the reward was 40 times that, but since both parties had agreed on the $50 then it is rightful and lawful to pay Scott. Jack did not specify or give Scott a time frame on which he should have delivered the note, therefore, the task from Scott's side seems complete, and he deserves the payment (Yates, Bereznicki-Korol, & Clarke, 2017. Pg. 186).
Scott bought the flowers with an intention and delivered them to Mary. The agreement between Jack and Scott did not entail the flowers, and hence the payment by Jack should be for the delivery of the message. Scott bought the flowers out of will and gifts are a voluntary transfer of personal property hence there is no refund for donations (Legal Definition of Gift, n.d.).
From Jill's overall advice I agree with her. Mary had promised a reward to anyone who delivered the information about her lamb that would lead her to find the lamb. Considering the scenario of the case all the three, I.e., John, Jack and Jill, no one deserves the reward in that no one delivered the information in time.
In my thought, Jack would have just delivered the information on his own and this way maybe he would have given it in time and would be eligible for the price. On a second opinion, he would have offered Scott a more significant amount which would have motivated him to deliver the message to Mary quickly.
Jill should have delivered the message in person since she was available, unlike Jack who was leaving. Or she would have checked if the message got received by Mary.
John would have delivered the message immediately considering the amount Mary had pledged to reward whoever gives the information of the whereabouts of her lamb.
According to Jack, he thinks that no one is eligible for the reward and I support his thoughts. A prize is not attached to any contract; hence once a person doesn't meet the requirements for the award cannot claim it (Legal Definition of Gift, n.d.). On the other hand, as mentioned earlier Jack deserves to pay Scott the promised amount since Scott delivered the message as per the agreement despite being too late (Yates, 2017). Jack did not specify the time limit for the delivery of the message. Hence I differ with Jack's consideration.
According to my thoughts, no one is eligible for the reward since none of the information and messages from the three reached Mary in time. Mary found the lamb on her own. On the Jack and Scott scenario the task was completed, and since they did not set conditions for the agreement, Scott deserves to get paid (Yates, 2017).
Kotz, H. (2017). European contract law. Oxford University Press.
Emerson, R. W., & Connors, S. (2017). Gifts (Vol. 1). BompaCrazy. com.
Legal Definition of Gift. (n.d.). Retrieved from Merriam Webster Law Dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gift
Yates, R. A., Bereznicki-Korol, T., & Clarke, T. (2017). Business Law in Canada. Toronto: Pearson. Pg. 186
Cite this page
Legal Definition of Gift Perspectives Paper Example. (2022, May 26). Retrieved from https://proessays.net/essays/legal-definition-of-gift-perspectives-paper-example
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the ProEssays website, please click below to request its removal:
- The "World Behind" Field of Dreams - Movie Review Analysis
- Response to an Article by Julia Lovell
- Challenges in Enforcing UN Human Rights Declaration Essay
- Essay on American System of Criminal Justice on the Black Males
- Research Paper on Future of Policing
- Research Paper on Prison Privatization
- Essay on Gun Control Argument on Social Media