Riggs v. Palmer

Response to paragraph one: If you go to any dictionary in the English language, one can be sure to find that a synonym for justice is fairness. One mentions this because in your argument you state that " this case goes beyond the circumstances of whether the will itself is fair or not" which will then mean that the court is not doing what it is suppose to do which is to make sure they are following the justice code which includes being fair. A even simpler way to view this case is by solely acknowledging that a murder took place. The only issue when referencing to the example of the mother goes back to my reasoning with the will, that how does one know if the mother is a reasonable woman to begin with. Another reason one may not agree with this issue is because when looking at an issue like this that deals with morals, one might feel differently from what someone else think or feels but both are necessarily wrong or right. Response to paragraph two: Whether what side you are on and arguing for, both parties can agree that killing and stealing is wrong. One can argue that this paragraph is not relevant to the argument at hand so it can be difficult to argue against these statements since they do not contribute to the main argument. Response to paragraph three: One can understand why the court will stand by their motto of not rewarding someone for their misdeeds. The concern for this particular case is that the kid who killed his grandfather was not being rewarded for killing his grandfather. He was convicted and had to deal with the consequences. A result of his grandfather dying rewarded him of the property, not the actually killing of the grandfather. When it comes to case precedent, the beauty of having a case that has never occurred is that you can set a very broad precedent to allow more discretion for the judges and it decreases the chances for people to utilize loopholes like the concept of unconscionably. Response to paragraph four: A will and a contract are not the same thing because if a will is a type of contract then that means when something is a contract it does not mean it is always going to be a will. A will cannot be tampered with and justified with the concept of a type of unconscionable contract because this will then mean that the wills very essence are being taking away. My issue with the judges decision was the fact the the grandson was charged with murder and the court further punished him by altering a will which was completely legal just to punish the kid twice which is unfair, thus making this a question of justice. Is it justice to punish a kid twice for one act? If so does that now set case precedent for future cases? The example used in this paragraphs fails to compare to the example of the situation we are arguing about because there are two contracts created so the court is not assuming anything because they have the information for what the testator initially wanted and what he ultimately wanted. In the case being argued the court has taken it upon them selves to assume the testator was a reasonable man as opposed to the example where they have proof of what the person wanted because it was already written. Response to paragraph five: With the coffee example was simply trying to give another analogy to better understand what you were trying to say. I see the coffee shop like that grandfather, the coffee is the will and the customer was the grandson. I feel like the grandson walked into the shop, got his coffee and the court decided to take it away. That is not fair because the owner of the coffee shop granted the grandson coffee. Concerns: Throughout the debate many things have been argued for and against. Some of my concerns have not been addressed and whether that is because of the lack of rounds or the large amount of issues that not all of them can be addressed. Never the less i feel that certain issues should be at least re-said. Concern1: How does the court establish the grandfather was a reasonable man? Concern2: If a will falls under a contract if put into categories how are they the same?