this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
445 points (94.6% liked)

People Twitter

5270 readers
736 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
445
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by Varven to c/[email protected]
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] SleepingLesson 7 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] Glowstick 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] SleepingLesson 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The contract lacks consideration and would not be found valid. No contract, no damages, no contingency.

[–] Glowstick 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SleepingLesson 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.