If we look at the given facts it is clear that there was a condition for receiving the artworks that it will not be sold and it will be used in a single piece, if this condition is breached then the promise made to the donor will be breached and thus this will result in a breach of contract. So looking at the conditions applied to the artwork, the law should not facilitate the sale. In my opinion. The action of Fisk was correct as in order to maintain the other artwork, it needed some funds and due to financial difficulties, it was not possible. So by selling some of the artwork, the other artworks can be protected and it looks logical. The recipient has the main responsibility of maintaining the donated artwork in a good condition and do everything to preserve the donated artwork. At the same time recipient should also respect the conditions communicated to him by the donor