Gene plans to convey a parcel of land to his friend Alice as a gift. He prepares a deed, signs it, and is on his way to Alice’s
house to give it to her when he dies of a heart attack. Alice and Bob are the first ones to find him and discover the deed clutched in his hand. Alice later records the deed, but Gene’s heirs challenge the validity of the conveyance. What do you expect a court would rule in this situation?
Although there was intent to deliver the deed and Gene had prepared the items for his friend with full intent to pass it along to her, this did not happen. Gene was unable to deliver the deed to Alice and therefore the family is in all rights to challenge this intention.
Truth be told, had Gene not suffered a heart attack, he could have changed his mind the second he was in Alice's doorway. Since there is no way to confirm this the family and the judge mus rely on the law.
As Alice did not physically posses the deed she is not entitled to the parcel of land.
Based on the scenario being described within the question it can be said that in this situation a court would most likely rule that Gene's intent to convey the property to Alice was ineffective because he died before he was able to deliver the deed. Since he was not able to finish this task the overall decision would become legally null and Alice would not be able to actually claim the parcel of land.
The distinction between flexible and fixed individual differences is that managers have little or no impact on fixed differences. Fixed differences in this case are often differences where the person who exhibits a certain characteristic is also the person who won't be changing them so soon. And this is a thing where managers have little say over it.
