In section 1, I read two cases — Houser v. Ohio Historical Soc. and In Re Estate of Therese Davis McCagg — both of which focused on the museum loans that contained no implicit limitation on the time for reclaiming the paintings. In both cases the court did not side with the museum, and consequently allowed the claimants to take back the donated works. In McCagg, there was not time mentioned in any of the documents whatsoever, whereas, in Houser, there was the language stating “…. for a term of ONE YEAR, or more, ….”. Nevertheless, the court construed both as having indefinite timing terms. It was surprising for me to see that the court and the parties did not entertain the idea that the indefiniteness of the timing terms may be a sign
