Chapter 23 – Personal Property and Bailments
Corliss v. Wenner and Anderson (page 646). In this case, the Idaho Court of Appeals held
that gold coins discovered by a contractor and his employee while excavating soil for a
driveway were not abandoned property or treasure trove that belonged to the finder, but
rather should be considered to be the property of the owner of the premises.
Points for Discussion: Ask your students whether they agree with the court’s decision?
Note the policy reasons the court cited for declining to hold that the gold coins should be
viewed as “treasure trove” with the finder acquiring ownership of them.
Additional Examples: Problem Cases #1 and #2.
Ethics in Action (page 649). Ask the students how they would respond to the question
posed by the author at the end of the article.
6. Briefly discuss acquisition by leasing. Stress that the lessee acquires only possession and
use rights, as opposed to ownership, of the leased property.
7. Discuss acquisition of property by gift. Note that to make a gift, the donor must intend to
make a gift (donative intent) and must voluntarily deliver the property to the donee
(deliver). It should be emphasized that delivery is required, because otherwise promises
to make gifts could be fabricated by donees. Relate this to the consideration requirement
in contract law and the general principle that promises to give gifts are unenforceable.
Give examples of situations in which there has been delivery and situations in which
there has not. Discuss and give examples of symbolic delivery.
Example: Problem Case #3.
a. Emphasize that a gift causa mortis is a conditional gift. It is ineffective if any of
three events (set forth in the text) occurs. Explain why gifts causa mortis are
revocable, whereas gifts inter vivos are not. Also note that a gift causa mortis takes
precedence over a will that states how the property will be distributed.
b. Discuss other types of conditional gifts such as engagement rings.
Lindh v. Surman (page 649): An engagement ring is an inherently conditional gift,
with marriage an implied condition of the transfer of title. Accordingly, the gift does
not become absolute until the marriage occurs. The court rejects the traditional fault-
based approach, under which Rodger would have lost the case because he broke the
engagement. Instead, the court adopts and applies a “no-fault” approach. Under this
approach, the giver of the engagement ring is entitled to recover it (or its value) when
the engagement is broken, regardless of which party is responsible for having ended
the relationship.
Points for Discussion: Ask the students whether they agree with the majority of the
court or with the view expressed by the dissenting judge. As a matter of public policy,
which approach–the no-fault rule or the fault-based rule–is preferable in engagement
ring cases?
Example: Problem Case #4.
c. Briefly discuss the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act.
8. Discuss confusion as a means of gaining ownership of property. Explain that confusion
exists only with fungible goods, such as grain or oil, that cannot be separated once they
are mixed. Another critical question is whether one of the owners deliberately or
negligently commingled the property. The wrongdoer must bear the loss of his intentional
or negligent act.
23-3
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.