Riggs v. Palmer

1.On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament that would benefit Elmer Palmer, the grandson should he survive Francis Palmer . (1.1) 2.The grandson, Elmer Palmer knew of such provisions and proceeds to murder his grandfather to expedite his inheritance from his grandfather"s will. (1.4) 3.A will is a form of contract. 4.Contracts are declared unconscionable under certain circumstances. 5.Certain provisions in a will can be changed by the courts under certain circumstances. 6.Through rational interpretation, the court found that the grandfather was ill-prepared for Palmer"s devious intentions and would not have rewarded Palmer for his murder. 7.The court further decided that this was not considered a second punishment to Palmer because the court is not taking away something that is already in Palmer"s possession. 8.Therefore, Palmer should not receive the inheritance pursuant to the will. I believe that my argument continues to stand. To respond to the example of the mother and the stolen toy, it is reasonable to assume that the "right" thing to do would be to not reward the child with the stolen toy. I agree with you in that when it comes to morals, there is no definite right or wrong but when it comes to public morality as in the moral standards of a society as a whole, murder is wrong. Even though the court does not based their decision on morals alone, it could be a reason that influenced their decision. The court can assume that granting Palmer his inheritance is immoral. (Not rewarding someone of their misdeed). I think we can both agree that this is not the real reason but that it played a role in forming the court"s decision. I agree with you in that a synonym for justice is fairness but in some cases I think it is a misconception. We all think of justice as being fair, equality and impartiality. The term justice is so vague that it cannot be pinpointed to one specific meaning. Another definition of justice is doing what is right and we can both agree that sometimes the right thing to do may not be fair or equal. Ticketing someone for jaywalking may not be fair because everyone else is doing it but according to the law, issuing the ticket was the right thing to do. A criminal gets to walk away from his crimes because most of the evidence collected violated the 4th amendment. It may not be fair, but according to the law it was the right thing to do because criminals are still citizens therefore they have rights too. Response to concern 1: When a will is admitted to probate, the surrogates court determines the validity of the will. When probate is granted, it means the will is declared valid and the testator as a reasonable person. One cannot execute a will if it is determine that one is not in the right state of mind. There are many procedures in executing a will to determine whether the person is reasonable. In this case, the will was admitted to probate, therefore the court can assume that the grandfather was a reasonable man. Response to concern 2: A will is a sufficient condition to being a contract. If a will, then a contract. This claim is sound. The opposite of that condition is untrue when the subjects are flip: If a contract, then a will. This is an invalid claim because not every contract is a will. Every will is a contract. Round 3 paragraph 4 addresses how a will is a type of contract. Side Note: The hypothetical in Round 3 paragraph 4 is relevant to this argument in that there are one key factor. Why did Will #2 not make it to probate? Is there a reason for the delay? Is it simply because the testator died before he had the chance or something else holding him back? This is where the court has to decide which document will be valid. Lastly, You have the parties in the coffee example correct, except the grandson walking into the coffee shop. What if the coffee shop was set on fire? (analogy against murdering the grandfather) Coffee shop burnt to the ground, grandson cannot get coffee from the coffee shop. Therefore, the court did not take away the grandson"s coffee when he did not have it to begin with. The court is simply deciding whether Palmer should get his inheritance BEFORE the inheritance is distributed. Thus cannot take away something Palmer did not receive in the first place.