I think museums these days are careful to make sure donations really are that. Not, probably, because they see a sale in their future but because in the event of commercial failure they don't want to have to execute thousands of different disposal requirements.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 2:55 PM Tarek Hoteit via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Wasn’t his sister busy buying or selling a sports team and showed no > interests in the museum? Same for Gates. Busy explaining how ChatGPT is the > best thing ever while all the money spent for “saving the world” seems to > have led to nothing. > > Regards, > Tarek Hoteit > > > On Apr 25, 2023, at 6:50 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Apr 25, 2023, at 9:43 AM, geneb via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023, Tom Hunter via cctalk wrote: > >>> > >>> Hopefully the LCM will be sold as a going concern rather than just a > >>> firesale of the assets. > >> AFAIK, it's a 503(c), and I suspect if they started to "fire sale" > assets, lawsuits from folks that made significant donations would be > inbound. > > > > Maybe, but what grounds would there be for a suit? If you donate to the > museum, the thing becomes their property, to dispose of as they see fit. > That is, unless you have a contract that says otherwise -- and even so, > you'd have to hope that a court would enforce a contract. There is ample > precedent of courts disregarding the plain English text of contracts or > trusts to permit museums to do things prohibited by the terms of agreements > with donors. A recent one (name forgotten) in Pennsylvania comes to mind. > > > > paul > > > > >
