Riggs v. Palmer

It would be too much to have the court intervene each time a will is problematic. It is also overbearing on a person's liberty when a person's will is subject to the judgment of the court. When a will is brought to question within the suit, the court must be able to address it and decide how best to serve justice. The claim where the court cannot assume the testator made a mistake is irrelevant. In fact, the court does not make such assumption. What the court did take into consideration was how prepare the testator was with respect to his grandson"s devious behavior. Just as the concept of unconscionability is vague because it cannot foresee all types of unfairness, so too is the idea that a person's last will and testament may not contain provisions that would cover all kinds of life's situation. In a way, the will can be compared to entering into a contract without fully understanding the terms and obligations. A judge would have to assess the circumstances of an unconscionable contract much the same way in assessing the construction of the will. Therefore, it is not asking too much of the court to assume what a testator would have done should he had prepare for his grandson"s intentions. The court"s judgment is only asserting that inheritance should not be granted to Palmer alone, the judgment did not alter the will in its entirety. The court was only brought to address this one specific issue, no more no less. To declare that the essence of the will is lost is far-fetched. The original will remains, only the provision granting Palmer"s inheritance is no longer in effect. It is also important to remember that the judgment of the court sets a precedent for future courts. This precedent will essentially mean that no person should profit from a will by murdering the testator. The precedent does not mean the final judgment of the will is at unlimited discretion of the court. Your claim was "the court should not punish someone for finding loopholes in the will". Looking at it from an unconscionable contract"s perspective, there are certain cases where the court deemed it necessary to punish someone exploiting loopholes by declaring the contract unconscionable. When someone exploits a loophole in a contract the severity of the consequence is what brings the case to court. Once the contract is under the scrutiny of the court, judges will have to determine what the loophole was, what the original intent of exploiting the loophole, assess the damage caused by the exploitation and other facts of the case. This is the same concept in this case. The judges determined: (a) the loophole was the absence of a provision concerning wrongful death; (b) the original intent was to expedite the inheritance; and (c) the consequence of such omission being the murder. With respect to the 7th claim. If the grandson claimed that he would not have murdered his grandfather if there was no inheritance to be claimed upon his death, then it is a clear admission on the part of the defendant that this was the ONLY intention and condition for his murder; to profit from the murder. Without the idea of inheritance, he would not have such devious thoughts about getting rid of the grandfather. This is all the more reason to deny him of his inheritance. If Palmer murdered a stranger and served his sentence then yes, he would probably receive the inheritance from his grandfather and that would not be consider "getting away with murder" because they are 2 separate cases and the intent behind the devious act is different. What the court is concerned about is the intent and motivation for the murder. By granting him the inheritance after the murder, he did "get away with murder"; he got what he intended to get from his bad deeds. In addition, Palmer is not being punished further by not being granted his inheritance. The court is essentially taking away something that was never in the possession of the defendant. It is not an additional punishment if the defendant does not get what is intended to him. If my intention is to buy coffee but the coffee shop is closed, the coffee shop is not taking away my coffee. I never had the coffee to begin with.