Explore BrainMass
Share

Validity of a Will

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

Flint is a widower who has two married children, Janek and Abrial. Abrial has two children, Phil and Paula. Janek has no children. Flint dies, leaving a typewritten will that gives all his property equally to his children, Janek and Abrial. The will also provides that should a child predecease him, leaving grandchildren, the grandchildren are to take per stirpes. The will was witnessed by Abrial and Flint's lawyer and signed by Flint in their presence. Abrial has predeceased Flint. Janek claims the will is invalid. Is Janek correct? What result if the will is declared invalid? What result if it is declared valid?

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 8:59 am ad1c9bdddf
https://brainmass.com/business/business-law/validity-will-560151

Solution Preview

In this scenario, Flint has two children, Janek and Abrial. Abrial has two children. Janek has no children. Flint died, leaving a will that was witnessed by his attorney and Abrial, which is one of the beneficiaries. The will gives Flint's property equally to Janek and Abrial, and their children, if a child predeceases Flint. Abrial, who has two children, has died before Flint. Janek claims the will is invalid.

Janek is claiming the will in invalid because it was witnessed by a beneficiary. As per ...

Solution Summary

This solution analyzes the legal case of Flint, a widower, and determines if the will is declared valid. All legal elements are discussed.

$2.19
See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

The mayor is taken with the idea of an advertising campaign developed around auctioning your city on eBay! He thinks that no one will take the auction seriously but that people will come to Bigtown to satisfy their curiosity.

The mayor is taken with the idea of an advertising campaign developed around auctioning your city on eBay! He thinks that no one will take the auction seriously but that people will come to Bigtown to satisfy their curiosity.
As you and your boss are rolling your eyes at each other, you remember a similar situation - the Pepsi Harrier-Jet case. You offer to provide background information and write an executive summary addressing specific issues around contracts.

Seattle Man Loses in Battle With Pepsi for Harrier-Jet Prize

LEAD STORY-DATELINE:
Wall Street Journal, August 9, 1999.

John D.R. Leonard took PepsiCo seriously when one of their "Pepsistuff" commercials made an offer of a Harrier jet, the famous high-tech "jump jet" used by the U.S. Marines. In a TV commercial that aired in 1995, Pepsi jokingly included the Harrier as one of the prizes that could be received with a "mere" 7 million Pepsi points. While that sounds like a lot of points to get from drinking Pepsi products (roughly 190 Pepsis a day for 100 years), the company also allowed customers to purchase points for 10 cents a piece.

Leonard did the math, and discovered that the cost of the 7 million points needed for the jet was a mere $700,000. He then put together a business plan, raised the $700,000 from friends and family, and submitted 15 Pepsi points, the check, and an official order form along with a demand for the Harrier jet.

PepsiCo wrote back, stating: "The Harrier jet in the Pepsi commercial is fanciful and is simply included to create a humorous and entertaining ad. We apologize for any misunderstanding or confusion that you may have experienced and are enclosing some free product coupons for your use."

The free coupons did not satisfy Leonard, who then took PepsiCo to task in court. Finally, on August 5, 1999, a federal judge for the Southern District of New York held that PepsiCo was only joking when it implied in its ad that it was giving away fighter jets. Judge Wood noted that since the jets sell for approximately $23 million each, "no objective person could reasonably have concluded that the commercial actually offered consumers a Harrier jet." Instead, this was a classic example of "a deal too good to be true."

The following questions:

1. What are the four elements of a valid contract?

2. Describe the objective theory of contracts. How does that theory apply to this case?

3. Why do you think the court held that there was not a valid agreement here?

4. Are advertisements generally considered offers? Why or why not?

5. How does this case differ from a reward situation, where a unilateral contract is formed upon completion of the requested act?

View Full Posting Details