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

People Twitter

5806 readers
1462 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
446
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 44 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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 There are likely other claim holders who have a stronger claim that would superceded this one, but in and of itself this absolutely is a legal binding contact.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

[–] [email protected] 28 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 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).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is not at all a will and testimate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 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)