Bank loan fraudster
Absurd. People with a fifth grade education might by into this nonsense, but anybody with a scintilla of knowledge knows the following proposition is legally deficient"
The accountant who spoke with TheDCNF said such a mistake was egregious, because bequests are far less legally binding (wills can be changed or invalidated). Such bequests shouldn’t be counted as confirmed contributions, he said.
The law is contrary to this absurd proposition that a legally enforceable will is less legally binding than a promise from a donor during a funding campaign:
Enforceability of Charitable Pledges
Thomas B. Lemann
A lot of ink has been spilled, some with dubious accuracy, on this subject. Whether a
charitable pledge is enforceable is, of course, purely
a question of state law, and the state
holdings are not unanimous;
“A conflict of authority exists as to whether
the mutual promises of subscribers constitute
a consideration for the subscription.”
All agree that in a situation of promissory estoppel, where the charitable pledgee has changed its position substantially, e.g. signed a building contract on the basis of pledges received, the pledge
is enforceable; the split of authority exists as to enforceability based only on beneficence and“mutual promises” of other donors.
Pace the entire premise of your bank fraudster is based on ONE gift coming in a will form, and other promises of gifts not being fulfilled........you cannot be this thick to realize that people do not always do what they say they were going to do with a gift to your church or your local pta.....do you put the minister in jail because they did not make the pledges?
Home
