Roberto has an art collection valued at $1,000,000. He has promised to donate his collection to a local arts foundation if that foundation satisfactorily obtains donations of equal value from other sources. The foundation manages to obtain matching donations. However, when Roberto died, his will stated that he had left his collection to his nephew, Michael. If the foundation sues, which of the following is true?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The arts foundation may have a valid claim based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. This doctrine applies when one party makes a promise to the other, who relies on that promise to their detriment. In this case, Roberto promised to donate his art collection to the foundation if it obtained matching donations, and the foundation relied on that promise to obtain those donations. Therefore, the foundation may be able to sue Michael for the value of the art collection, based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Choice A is incorrect because beneficiaries of a will do not have an absolute right to the property left to them, especially if it was obtained through means that are deemed fraudulent or unjust. Choice B is incorrect because the foundation cannot claim it had an implied agreement with Roberto when the promise to donate was expressly conditioned on the satisfaction of the requirement of the other donations being obtained. Finally, choice D is incorrect because the foundation may bring a claim even if it's not an immediate family member, based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Roberto Has an Art Collection Valued at $1,000,000