Life Skills

Issue

The issue, in this case, was whether King had made a gratuitous transfer of papers to Boston University. Factually, Martin Luther King made a charitable pledge of specific papers he had deposited with the university. King died, but his wife refused to honor the pledge, claiming it was a mere statement of intention to act in the future, and no consideration was presented.

Rule

Massachusetts law requires a party to prove the existence of a promise and support by consideration or reliance.

Application

According to the court, the deceased’s promise amounted to a charitable subscription because he gave it for an altruistic reason. The deceased also made a bailment by depositing the papers with the university, confirming the donative intent. Also, the university presented consideration by taking care of the papers.

Conclusion

King’s papers were a charitable donation to the university.

Maryland National Bank v. United Jewish Appeal Federation of Greater Washington, Inc., 286 Md. 274, 407 A.2d 1130 (1979)

Issue

The issue was whether a donation survived the pledger where the donee did not enter an agreement contemplating the pledge. A pledger promised $200,000 to a charity. Upon the death of the pledger, there was an unpaid amount of $133,500. The personal representatives disallowed a claim for the balance.

Rule

Maryland law stipulates that an enforceable pledge to a charitable organization should reasonably induce action or forbearance on the part of the promise.

Application

The court found the pledge not binding for four reasons. Firstly, the charity had not given any consideration to the pledge. Secondly, there was no binding agreement made on the strength of the pledge. Thirdly, the pledge was not toward a specific purpose failure, which would be detrimental to the receiver. Fourthly, there was no forbearance or concrete action on the receiver’s part to justify restitution.

Conclusion

The pledge was not binding due to the lack of consideration, agreement, and forbearance.

Appalachian Bible College v. Foremost Industries, 1:17-cv-184 (2018)

Issue

The issue was whether a charitable pledge was enforceable in the presence of a written agreement to that effect. Foremost Industries had signed a charitable gift agreement in 2015 in which it promised to pay $4 million to Appalachian Bible College in five equal monthly installments. Foremost did not make any payment in honor of the pledge.

Rule

In contract law, a promise in writing is binding on the parties.

Application

The court analyzed this case as previous cases involving pledges for charitable donations. However, this case was unique due to a written agreement supporting the pledge. Appalachian Bible College included a clause in the agreement holding that reliance on the pledge was a reason for honoring it to prevent detrimental consequences. Thus, Foremost had to honor its obligation in the contract.

Conclusion

Like a formal contract, a charitable agreement in writing is binding on Foremost.