this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
445 points (94.4% liked)

People Twitter

5226 readers
2322 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Glowstick@lemmy.world 44 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (13 children)

You say that jokingly, but it absolutely does. There are likely other claim holders who have a stronger claim that would superceded this one, but in and of itself this absolutely is a legal binding contact. This is exactly the kind of nonsense he spouts that put him in a position where he legally had to buy twitter even though he didn't actually want to

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 28 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (12 children)

but it absolutely does

I get why you would say that, because verbal contracts are definitely a real thing that can be binding, and this basically takes the form of a verbal contract, with the added advantage of being written down so it's easy to prove what was said.

But I don't think any court would ever find that this constituted a binding contract. No reasonable person would believe that this was intended to be taken seriously, and an offer made in jest does not constitute a binding contract. See Leonard v Pepsico.

edit: With Twitter, as far as we know, he had actually signed a more standard contract in which he waived his right to due diligence. It was rash and stupid, but not really comparable to this at all.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

There's no consideration specified, so it's not really a contract in normal terms.

It is however a last will and testament for disposal of his asset(s).

[–] SleepingLesson@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is not at all a will and testimate.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Depends on the jurisdiction. Some states recognise "nuncupative" and "holographic" wills.

Other jurisdictions recognise any "speech" that details disposal of assets upon death as a will.

[–] SleepingLesson@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

There is no jurisdiction in which the facts of this situation would constitute a binding will.

The circumstances in which a will can be formed orally are death-bed situations where formation of a proper will are impractical.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)