When Can You Sue for the Return of Gifted Money

[johnnyb5]

By using the logic here, does that mean calling an invalid contract a contract make it valid?

[Mr. Knowitall]

That seems to be what they think. A gift, once given, doesn't magically become a loan when your girlfriend dumps you.

[johnnyb5]

My point was that this isn't a gift to begin with. A gift is a transfer of property or service without consideration. In this case there is consideration and apparently she hasn't kept her end.

[johnnyb5]

I'm also amazed by the answers given, anyone ever bothered to figure out the definition of "gift" it is very specific. Calling something a gift doesn't make it a gift just like calling something a contract doesn't mean it's a contract.

[jk]

so, what was the consideration given by the girl? Are you suggesting her "services"?

also understand that the "contract" appears to be quite ambiguous. Just how long would the girl have to "be nice" (is that a euphemism for something else?) to your friend? a week, a month, a year, forever?

also, the original $17k is gone. It was a gift without conditions placed upon it. How much money are we talking about since the $17k?

[Mr. Knowitall]

As you already know, jk, he's yet another example of the person who gets upset with us for telling him what the law is, and not buying into his nonsensical distortions and fictions to try to get around the law.

[johnnyb5]

so, what was the consideration given by the girl? Are you suggesting her "services"?

I am not sure, they said there were specific "terms" whatever those terms are they haven't been fulfilled but they are the consideration.

also understand that the "contract" appears to be quite ambiguous. Just how long would the girl have to "be nice" (is that a euphemism for something else?) to your friend? a week, a month, a year, forever?

there is no information on that, whether it was divided has never been said.

As you already know, jk, he's yet another example of the person who gets upset with us for telling him what the law is, and not buying into his nonsensical distortions and fictions to try to get around the law.

i pointed out the absurd response you gave; something is a gift regardless of whether it meets the legal definition of "gift"? how does that work?

the $17,000 is gone the secondary money afterwards is not a gift even if it was labeled as a gift since in return for the additional money the terms were supposed to be fulfilled.

[jk]

are you always like this? You type but say nothing.

bottom line:

your friend cannot impose a contract retroactively. Any money given as a gift remains a gift. If there was a contract entered into at some point with money loaned after that, then he can demand repayment and if nor paid, he can sue her. As to anything specific about the situation: your statements do not make anything clear but I would guess he doesn't have an enforceable contract.

Oh, and to the definition of a gift:

unless there is something in the written contract defining it, the court will impose the standard definition that you will find in the dictionary.

[johnnyb5]

your friend cannot impose a contract retroactively.

who's friend? mine? I am not the OP, you should start reading more carefully. No, contracts cannot be imposed retroactively but then again this talks about the money given after the agreement between both parties was set. The question as far as I understand is the money recoverable that has been given after the agreement has been set even though it was referred to as a "gift".

The answer is yes, even though it was a gift, it was given because the receiver made an agreement to specific terms but has not fulfilled them.

If there was a contract entered into at some point with money loaned after that, then he can demand repayment and if nor paid, he can sue her.

correct, money was given, something happened and a contract was established, afterwards more money was given and terms were no fulfilled. So the question as I understood it was the money recoverable when it was referred to as a gift.

Oh, and to the definition of a gift:

money that was given after the contract was formed was never a gift since there were terms no matter what they called the money, gift, loan whatever.

unless there is something in the written contract defining it, the court will impose the standard definition that you will find in the dictionary.

except it was written by the OP it was defined in writing:

He had them written in almost same way you would read on a contract:

Point is, simply calling something a gift doesn't make it a gift, if there is consideration then it isn't a gift.

[jk]

well, when you start responding in a fashion that suggests you have intimate knowledge of the situation, you might get mistaken for the OP. We do have people posting under multiple use names here.