Facts

Jason, age 90, had a very valuable violin collection. He was helped by a nephew, Alden, who was an excellent violinist. Just prior to making a new will, Jason told his nephew that he was going to give him the collection. Its yours, he said, adding that he would hold on to the collection for safekeeping. He also sent Alden a letter in which he said, I give you my violin collection, and when I die, It will be yours. Jason died four weeks later. In his will, which did not refer to the violins, he left his entire estate to his two children. Alden brought suit against the estate to have the violin collection declared his property.

At Trial

Alden testified at the trial about the help he had given his uncle over a period of fifteen years. He produced the letter his uncle had sent him and recalled their many conversations during which his uncle had promised to give him the violins. There was additional testimony that Jasons children had never even picked up a violin and had been estranged from their father for years. Aldens attorney argued that the collection belonged to Alden because Jason had gifted the violins to Alden during Jasons lifetime and that there was symbolic delivery. He further argued that Jasons keeping possession of the violins was solely to protect them and in no way invalidated the gift. He also argued that to deprive Alden of the collection that his uncle obviously wanted to give him would be unfair. The childrens attorneys argued that the will was validly executed and promises made orally or in writing do not constitute valid gifts. They further argued that actual and not symbolic delivery is an essential requirement for a gift to be deemed valid.

If you were the judge or jury hearing this case, for whom would you decide? Why?