3 ms·
Presumably, if he kept the items for himself, the person who donated would have a case against him. So he has a legal obligation to give the items to someone el
by ikeboy 10y ago
Presumably, if he kept the items for himself, the person who donated would have a case against him. So he has a legal obligation to give the items to someone else, which was created when he received money from the donator.
This seems clearly structured as a sale from Amazon to him, and a sale from him to the donator, with instructions to give it to charity.
If it was his own money the case would be a bit murkier, perhaps.
- icebraining 10y agoClearly there's an obligation to use the funds for a specific purpose, but that doesn't mean the donor is buying that food, anymore than a donor to Doctors Without Borders is employing MDs. Unless the donors are choosing the specific items to be purchased and the specific recipients, I don't see how it can be considered that they have bought anything.
- ikeboy 10y ago>Clearly there's an obligation to use the funds for a specific purpose, but that doesn't mean the donor is buying that food, anymore than a donor to Doctors Without Borders is employing MDs. I feel like having an actual charity changes this somewhat, in that it's expected that a charity might not spend all its donations right away, there's overhead, etc. As far as I can tell he's doing this all personally.