Riggs v. Palmer

In response to your example where there is a preference in assets distribution then you are right, the court should not interfere. However, this case goes beyond the circumstances of whether the will itself is fair or not. Fairness with respect to the proportion of inheritance is irrelevant. The facts are that this case is simple that a murder has been committed for no other reason by to receive the inheritance. This is what the court is concerned with. I would refer back to an earlier example in Round 1: a mother would not reward a toy to her child if she had known that the same toy was stolen. Morals tell us the difference between right and wrong. Stealing is immoral, therefore one should not steal. One may reasonably question what morals has to do with law. The answer can be found in Devlin"s theory from the Morals and Criminal Law reading. Devlin theorize that there are 2 main elements of society: (1) politics; and (2) morals. That society has the right to enforce certain morals in society because it is the social moral bonds that holds society together. Laws against stealing and killing provides for both security and welfare of a society and moral values. The security and welfare of a society refers to protecting the victim and people do not have to live in fear. The moral principle tells us that both stealing and killing is wrong. When the court decided that Palmer did not deserve his inheritance, the judges did not only interpret the law"s meaning but the decision was also based on a moral principle. One does get rewarded for their misdeeds. The court also had to consider what kind of precedent they are setting up for the future courts to follow. The court could not use reason by analogy because there was no such law and this case is the first of its kind. This would explain why the court has to go through some great lengths to try and justify their reasoning. I would have to disagree with your claim that a will and a contract are different things. On the contrary, a will is a type of contract. It is a written agreement between parties. A will is somewhat like a promissory note where one party agrees to certain future obligations to another with the state being a witness to such future obligations. If a will is like a contract, then it can also be subjected to the idea of unconscionability. Usually if a will is considered unconscionable, the surviving party(ies) of the will can sue where the court will make the final judgment depending on the circumstances. It is like a regular trial where the judge will have to consider the opinions of the surviving party(ies) and read all of the wills (including the superseded will, if any) and decide what would the testator have done in such a situation. Most suits that are brought before the court concerning a will, the testator probably passed already. By way of illustration only, Testator"s drafts a will ("Will #1") and sends it to probate that grants child 1, 2, 3 and 4 equal distribution of the Testator"s assets upon the Testator"s death. Time passed and the Testator decides to readjust the distribution of inheritance for the Testator"s children. The Testator drafts a new will ("Will #2") that would supersede Will #1 that grants child 1 with 75% of the Testator"s assets, child 2 and 3 will each receive 25% of the Testator"s assets and child 4 is left with nothing. What happens if Will #2 was signed but never made it to probate? Child 1 can argue that the Will #2 was signed, therefore the final intentions of the Testator while Child 4 can argue that since Will #2 was never granted probate, Will #1 is still in effect, therefore Child 4 is entitled to the Testator"s assets. How will this issue be resolved? Child 1 and 4 will most likely bring the case to the court to let the court decide the final judgment of the will. In this example, the court is asked to change the will and if the court decides to rule in favor of Will #2, the court is changing the will in its entirety; the very essence of the original will. This is similar to the Palmer case in that the appellants had asked the court to change the will, albeit not in its entirety. Using the coffee example from the previous round, you claimed it was not because "the coffee shop was closed but rather the coffee was given to me, it was taken away..". I would have to have the coffee in the first place in order be taken away. If the coffee shop is closed, you cannot get coffee. If you do not have coffee, then the coffee cannot be taken away. Therefore, the coffee shop cannot take away something it has not given.