446
Guess he gets twitter/X idk
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
446 points (94.4% liked)
People Twitter
5367 readers
1638 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- 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
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 There are likely other claim holders who have a stronger claim that would superceded this one, but in and of itself this absolutely is a legal binding contact.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
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.
That's a funny court case. Pepsi releases an ad where someone gets a fighter jet for 7,000,000 pepsi points. Someone finds they can be bought for $0.10 each, so buys that many pepsi points and asks for the jet. The court sides with Pepsi, because it's ridiculous to think you're getting a fighter jet for that, and afterwards Pepsi edits the commercial to make it 700,000,000 pepsi points instead.
Also Pepsi never cashed the check for the points, and they did add a "Just Kidding" disclaimer, but that wasn't in the synopsis on Wikipedia. 700,000,000 pepsi points would cost almost double what the jet is valued at, so if someone did try the stunt again, they'd theoretically be able to get the jet to them. However, the Pentagon stated that the jet would have to be demilitarized, which includes removing its advertised feature of vertical takeoff and landing.
Good clarification from someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about, thanks. But i see no clear indication that it was said in jest. I mean if i had to guess i would say it was in jest, but i also can very easily see elon saying this in earnest because he's done so many rash enormous decisions in the past. I feel like at a bare minimum it's got enough validity that a lawsuit about it would become a real case and might make elon's estate want to give a cash settlement to avoid the litigation
I'm just a well-read interested amateur, not a lawyer, let alone an American contract lawyer.
Leonard was a case where Pepsi advertised, basically, that they'd sell you a Harrier Jet for $700,000. Leonard sent them a cheque for that amount and tried to get them to honour the deal. There was nothing explicit in the ad that made it a joke, but Pepsi refused, and ultimately won the lawsuit because it was absurd. Likewise, in my opinion, giving away a multibillion dollar company on the basis of three tweets, one of which is describing the possibility of a mysterious death, and another which is literally just "Ok" is very similar to that situation, in that it's played straight, but is obviously a joke because of the content.
You're right that a lawsuit could be brought. I suspect it would even pass summary judgment, because whether or not it's a joke would be a finding of fact, not a simple finding of law. And I don't know what's hypothetical Musk Estate would do, but if it were Elon himself in charge there's a good chance you're right, he'd try to settle it. Not because he's afraid of losing or concerned about the cost of the lawsuit, but for the same reason he hurried to buy Twitter when he did: to avoid going through discovery. He obviously doesn't want details of his finances made public, for whatever reason. And his estate might very well inherit that shyness.
But all that would rely on Mr Beast being stupid enough to press his claim in the first place. I only know about him third-hand as a famous YouTuber with a history of doing some rather silly stunts, but surely this would be beyond him. The case might make for good Content™, but entering into it would be very expensive with almost zero chance of proper success and nowhere near a guarantee of even a favourable settlement.
Leonard would not be controlling here. This is a plain case of a contract lacking consideration and thus being invalid. The case would be dismissed, no need for summary judgment.
Good walkthrough. I think a lawyer would happily take the case on contingency to get a cut of a big easy settlement, but other than that everything you wrote sounds likely
The contract lacks consideration and would not be found valid. No contract, no damages, no contingency.
I'm not a lawyer at all, but i just googled the definition of "consideration" and i don't see how it applies here. This is a statement of how his property should be bequeathed after his death. People don't will their properties to people in exchange for benefit before they die.
Consideration means both sides need to give something in order for a contact to be formed. Asking "can I have x", and the other side saying "yes" is not a contract because there is no consideration. This is day 1 law school Contracts stuff.
A will requires a document and cannot be formed orally except in very specific circumstances that do not apply here.
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).
This is not at all a will and testimate.
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.
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.