Hi Thomas,

SNIP


>Let's say your neighbor has a canalization problem. Sometimes there are pieces of your garden under water. Why not give him a few hundred bucks to specifically fix this ?
>

No, it would be better to pay for the repair or pay a portion of the repair costs directly to the contractor rather than to your neighbor.

This is actually quite humorous to me (your example only I mean) because on a recent episode of one of the Judge Judy/Texas Justice shows (or whatever it was - not sure because I only caught a few minutes by accident when I was scrolling through channels and stopped to hear the trial in progress) a person had given his neighbor 200.00 to be used towards the cost of cutting down a tree that straddled the two pieces of property. The receiver of the funds didn't use the money for that purpose - in fact, he never had the tree cut down so the giver took him to small claims court. The judge basically said in effect that when money is given as a gift you have no say over its use. You cannot specify what the money will be used for unless you pay for a service and receive a receipt for the funds. If you want to specify that it go for a specific purpose then he should have paid the tree removal service directly and not his neighbor. He was basically out 200.00