Anonymous wrote:The actual definition according to the US Supreme Court is something given with “disinterested generosity “.
Interesting, since culturally gifts are pretty much never disinterested. They are more often a sign of good will offered in expectation of getting good will back. In other cases I believe they are essential to a culture's economy (remember some anthropology film about a particular group of people whose entire lifestyle is defined around throwing really lavish parties which include giving their material wealth to everyone else besides a lot of eating and drinking).
Or gifts given to a god or king as a sign of, hm, submission?? ("What is mine is not really mine, because You o Lord own everything"?)
But in a legal sense, the SCOTUS point would simply be that no, you cannot expect to prevail if you try to sue to get something back as a result of giving something as a gift.