donor that will be crucial, rather than the more familiar exercise of ascertaining the intentions of both parties in construing the agreement. 72. Mr. Hornett’s written reply helpfully refers me to Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition (2004) vol 20(1) that address the topic of “Gifts Made Between Living Persons” at Paragraph [1] p. 3. : “A gift made between living persons...may be defined shortly as the transfer of any property from one person to another gratuitously while the donor is alive and not in expectation of death. It is an act whereby something is voluntarily transferred from the true owner in possession to another person with the full intention that the thing shall not return to the donor. A gift appears to be effective when the donor intends to make it a gift and the recipient takes the thing given and keeps it knowing that he has done so. The mere fact that the recipient regards the thing given as a loan and intends so to treat it does not by not itself prevent the transaction from being effective as a gift”. 73. The first two sentences confirm the view of the common law reached by the South African Supreme Court in Welch. The support cited for the proposition found in the last two sentences is the case of Dewar v Dewar [1975] 2 All ER 728. This was a decision of Goff J., as he then was, that confirms that for a transaction to have effect as a gift there must first be the intention of the donor to give it as such. In my judgment if the facts of Dewar were reversed and the donor intended a loan while the donee took it as a gift there would be no effective gift in law. Of course, this does not mean that a donor who makes an unconditional gift can change his mind later after it has been accepted as such (see Halsbury’s Laws paras. [58]- [61]). Where the gift is not by deed, delivery is a necessary part of the gift and as stated at paragraph [38]: “to constitute delivery the act must be such or be accompanied by such words as to be equivocal;”. 74. 75. Taking the passage cited at [72] above as a whole I derive from it two principles of relevance to the present dispute:i. Gifts are voluntary and gratuitous, that is to say made without consideration. ii. Gifts require the donor to intend that the gift shall not be returned to him. It is certainly not sufficient to constitute a gift for a charity to assume that any transfers made to it are gifts unless the contrary is shown. This would particularly be the case where the charity is in the habit of receiving both gifts and loans and does not have a standard form donations slip that it asks donors to use.. Conclusions: Issue 1: the agreement 76. However unsatisfactory aspects of the Claimant’s unsupported evidence are, what remains clear is that both parties understood that they were making arrangements for transfers that were to be recorded in writing and signed by both of them. However informal and hastily drafted this agreement was, it was clearly of importance to the