Imperfect gift perfected by appointment as executor (Strong v Bird)
In 2022 Wilfred Abara, who lived in Bristol, England, told his close friend Marta Silva: 'My Steinway piano is yours now, it's a present.' He meant this as an immediate gift, but the piano stayed in his house because Marta had no room for it, and no deed of gift was made. Until his death in 2026 Wilfred regularly told visitors that the piano belonged to Marta, and he never suggested he had changed his mind. His valid will appoints Marta as his sole executor and leaves his residuary estate to his cousin, Desmond. Marta has obtained a grant of probate.
Who is entitled to the piano?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer C: Marta, because Wilfred's intention of an immediate gift continued until death and title vested in her as executor, perfecting the gift.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
An imperfect lifetime gift is perfected if the donor's intention to make an immediate gift continued until death and the donee acquires legal title as the donor's executor or administrator (Strong v Bird).
Imperfect gift perfected by appointment as executor (Strong v Bird)
A gift of a chattel needs delivery or a deed, so Wilfred's words alone did not transfer the piano. However, under the rule in Strong v Bird an imperfect gift is perfected where the intended donee becomes the donor's executor (or administrator) and so acquires the legal title, provided the donor had a present intention to give that continued unchanged until death. In Day v Harris the Court of Appeal applied the rule to an incomplete gift of manuscripts, holding that it became a complete gift on the donor's death when the donee became an executor. Here Wilfred intended an immediate gift, the only defect was the lack of delivery, and his intention plainly continued: he kept telling people the piano was Marta's. Marta is his executor and now holds the legal title, so the gift is perfected and she takes the piano beneficially. It does not form part of the residue passing to Desmond.
Why A is wrong: Strong v Bird is an exception to the volunteer rule and applies precisely where the gift failed for lack of delivery.
Why B is wrong: The rule perfects a gift; the donee gives no value and pays nothing.
Why D is wrong: Becoming executor is the very event that perfects the gift; the rule against executors profiting does not prevent it.
Why E is wrong: Marta suffered no detriment, so estoppel is unavailable, and it is not needed because Strong v Bird applies.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Imperfect gift of shares not saved as a declaration of trust (Milroy v Lord)
Which of the following best describes Felix's position?
Gift to a trust where the donor is one of several trustees (Choithram v Pagarani)
Which of the following best describes the status of the portfolio?
The rule in Re Rose: donor has done everything in their power
Who is entitled in equity to the shares?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.