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 <
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.
On Apr 25, 2023, at 6:50 AM, Paul Koning via
> On Apr 25, 2023, at 9:43 AM, geneb via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
>> 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
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.