39

So a "friend" in Canada sent me a tablet ( I think it was worth $400 U.S. currency) to replace the one I had that I could barely do anything on. I never asked for one, and I remember repeatedly that I told him not to get it for me, but he did. Now that I'm no longer in his life, he wants me to send back everything he sent me, and he says he will report the tablet as stolen if I don't return it. I know about conditional gifts, but I never made any promises tied to the tablet, so I'm not sure if it counts as a conditional gift.

Kat
  • 229
  • 1
  • 10
Maria
  • 321
  • 1
  • 3
  • 5
  • 40
    This is an aside from the legal matter, but as a personal safety matter, you absolutely should not return the tablet to someone who is behaving this way after a breakup if you don't have a deep understanding of infosec. Even if you think you wipe it, there may be ways for this person to recover your data, including account credentials, private photos, etc. and use them against you or just make your life hell. – R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE Dec 19 '18 at 02:49
  • 4
    Do you have documentation that it was a gift? Like emails and chat logs? Also, have you ever met in person? I.e. is it possible for him to claim he visited you and you stole it from his bag while he was there? – corsiKa Dec 19 '18 at 07:11
  • 6
    You said your "friend" lives in Canada. Do you also live in Canada? – Keiki Dec 19 '18 at 13:45
  • Im not a lawyer, but common sense dictates that the world would be a *much* different place if we were allowed to take back gifts whenever we choose. I have also watched enough Judge Judy to imagine how hard she would rip your "friend" a new asshole. – Keltari Dec 20 '18 at 07:27

1 Answers1

51

If someone gave a gift than requested it back is it legal?

The request itself is legal, but that does not mean that you have to comply with it.

I never promised anything that tied to the tablet. So I'm not sure if it counts as a conditional gift.

It does not. An unconditional gift (which initially you did not even want) fails to meet the elements of a cognizable doctrine such as contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, or unjust enrichment.

he says he will report the tablet as stolen if I don't return it

He might get in trouble if he does that, since he knows or should know that the tablet was never stolen. He gave it away despite your initial refusal(s). As such, he might incur false reporting of a crime.

Iñaki Viggers
  • 1
  • 4
  • 68
  • 95
  • 6
    Nevertheless, if OP's "friend" does proceed to report the tablet as stolen, it might be very difficult for OP to prove that they rightfully own it. The "friend" presumably has a receipt, bank/card statements, the original packaging, etc. – Kevin Dec 18 '18 at 22:25
  • 51
    Just the text message or email "asking" for it back would be evidence that it was a gift, and the giver knew it was a gift, and threatened to report it stolen, knowing full-well how the receiver came to possess it. – abelenky Dec 18 '18 at 22:40
  • 22
    @Kevin (1) The OP might have proof in writing that he insisted on making the gift despite her attempts to dissuade him. (2) Most likely, some examination of the accuser (by the police or through testimony under oath) will suffice to unearth inconsistencies in his allegations that it was "stolen". (3) The delay or timing in reporting the alleged theft of a tablet (that is, only after the OP is "no longer in his life") weakens the accuser's allegation that it truly was stolen. – Iñaki Viggers Dec 18 '18 at 23:55
  • Also the fact that there is an established "relationship" (broad term) will help to motivate police to look further into this, than if the OP and the original owner had never even heard of each other (in which case you'd probably just assume it was stolen) – Lightness Races in Orbit Dec 19 '18 at 12:04
  • 1
    If the person providing the tablet is still paying for the tablet through some contract with a third party (e.g. cellular service provider), then the tablet is not theirs to give as an unconditional gift until that debt is fully paid. Beware that if they can show they are still paying for the item, it is most certainly able to be reported as stolen (and not from them, from the third party!) – Keeta - reinstate Monica Dec 19 '18 at 12:46
  • 1
    @Keeta That should be an answer, not a comment on another answer. You talk about a completely different scenario which cannot really be discussed when you post it as a comment. – pipe Dec 19 '18 at 15:10
  • 8
    @Keeta That assumption would not change the OP's legal position at all. The accuser's/"friend's" outstanding balance with the tablet supplier is completely independent of his decision to give that item to the OP as a gift. Neither the supplier has a valid claim against the OP, nor does the supplier have a valid claim of theft whatsoever. The supplier would only have a claim against the "friend" for breach of contract (or, less likely, for fraud or unjust enrichment), a contract to which the OP is totally unrelated. – Iñaki Viggers Dec 19 '18 at 16:11
  • @IñakiViggers Normally this would be the case I think if they bought it and had a contract to pay for it in installments, or got it free for signing up for a 2 year contract for instance. However, if they were actually renting the tablet, wouldn't that be that different? – Jason Goemaat Dec 19 '18 at 16:34
  • 2
    @JasonGoemaat: Some purchase contracts allow a lender to repossess items, and some do not. If a lender would be entitled to repossess an item from the original purchaser, they would retain the right to repossess it from anyone who acquires it, at least in cases where they could do so without entering private property (if Bob buys a product from Joe, Joe may require as a condition of sale that he be given permission to enter Bob's property to repossess it; if Bob gives the item to Steve, however, that would not give Joe permission to enter Steve's property). – supercat Dec 19 '18 at 16:41
  • 1
    @JasonGoemaat "if [the friend] were actually renting the tablet, wouldn't that be that different?" No. If the tablet was rented, then the "friend" is still in the wrong for giving it away despite him knowing it was not his property. Ultimately he --not the OP-- is the one liable to the supplier. – Iñaki Viggers Dec 19 '18 at 16:52
  • Could you also explain the term "conditional gift"? To me as a layperson, this sounds like a contradiction in terms, since in everyday language, a condition turns a "gift" into a "payment" or "trade". – henning Dec 19 '18 at 17:15
  • 5
    @henning "a condition turns a "gift" into a "payment" or "trade"" Not necessarily. A conditional gift could be contingent on some event. Example: "If the USD/EUR exchagne rate goes down tomorrow, I'll make you a gift", the other party being unable to influence the exchange rate. – Iñaki Viggers Dec 19 '18 at 17:28
  • @IñakiViggers I see. – henning Dec 19 '18 at 17:31
  • 1
    @Keeta "Beware that if they can show they are still paying for the item, it is most certainly able to be reported as stolen (and not from them, from the third party!)" It would not be theft, it would be conversion. And it would not be by the OP, it would be by the "friend". – Acccumulation Dec 19 '18 at 18:21
  • @IñakiViggers That's not what a conditional gift means in this context. There's still no cause for getting the gift back regardless of what the exchange rate does. – mbrig Dec 19 '18 at 22:59
  • 3
    @henning A conditional gift in this context is something like an earmarked gift to a charity. "Here's $1000 but you can only spend it on textbooks for school", "I'm giving you this bike but if I don't see you using it I'm taking it back". These kinds of things have various legal standings depending on local law... – mbrig Dec 19 '18 at 23:01
  • 1
    @mbrig Good point, but I was just explaining to Henning that conditional does not exclusively translate to payment or trade. Conditions can be partitioned into those which depend on the counterparty's conduct/performance and those which do not. – Iñaki Viggers Dec 19 '18 at 23:46
  • I meant to put gift in quotes. I was pointing out that the friend could claim it was loaned to OP. Friend doesn't have legal standing to gift it since they do not yet own it. I had a foster son. I let him use my phone so that he could contact me to pick him up from football practice. When he was placed with an adoptive family, I asked for it back and he said he lost it, then later that I gifted it to him. My standing in court was that I could not have gifted it to him since I had not yet fully paid for the phone myself. Court agreed and awarded damages (by then he had destroyed the phone). – Keeta - reinstate Monica Dec 20 '18 at 12:10