Law: Kenyon Vs Abel

435 Words2 Pages
Kenyon v. Abel Property: Common Law Doctrines In 2001 Rick Kenyon purchased a painting from the Salvation Army for $25, valued somewhere between $8,000 and $15,000. Claude Abel filed a litigation against Kenyon in hopes to regain ownership of the painting, which he claimed belonged to his aunt. Abel argued that the Salvation Army unknowingly took the painting from his aunt’s house when picking up boxes which were to be donated. Shortly after returning home to Idaho, Abel realized the box the painting was in was never delivered. Abel was then able to track the painting to Kenyon and file an action to retrieve ownership. Abel was awarded ownership of the painting through two common law doctrines: law of gifts and law of conversions. Kenyon v. Abel, 36 P.3d 1161, (Wyo. 2001). The superseding decision in Kenyon v. Abel was determined through the use of common law. Common law is a body of unwritten laws adopted from England, used in courts to help determine the outcome of a litigation when no statute or precedent has previously been made. The main focus in this case was the law of gifts. “A valid gift consists of three elements: (1) a present intention to make an immediate gift; (2) actual of constructive delivery of the gift that divests the donor of dominion and control; (3) acceptance of the gift by the donee.” (Barnes, 620). According to the first element of gifts, a present intention to give the gift must be made, and it was not. Abel did not anticipate on giving the painting to the Salvation Army; thus, it does not constitute as a gift. The second area of common law in which this case influenced was the law of conversion. “Conversion occurs when any person treats another’s property as their own, denying the owner possession and rights of ownership.” (Barnes, 621). The Salvation Army exercised dominion over the painting which denied Abel any rights to

More about Law: Kenyon Vs Abel

Open Document