A man transferred money to his nursing caregiver so that she would buy an apartment for him and write it down in his name, but the caregiver registered the apartment in her name.
The Court ruled that the nanny holds the apartment in trust for that man. The relationship between the man and the therapist is that of a sender and an agent. An agent performs actions on behalf of the sender which benefit the sender and any asset purchased by the agent is held in trust for the sender. The therapist's claim that she had enough money to buy the apartment even without the money transferred by that man is irrelevant since only the causal connection between the mission and the action performed should be examined and if the apartment was purchased due to the mission, it belongs to the sender