5 ms·

I side with the Australian court in this instance (based on the article). I would disagree if he already had an established will, and the court decided to supe

I side with the Australian court in this instance (based on the article). I would disagree if he already had an established will, and the court decided to supersede it by substituting the unsent text. But, isn't the unsent text preferable to nothing? Seems like the unsent text is the superior to nothing.

legohead 9y ago
But he's also married... And the article doesn't say, but what if he had children? I'm sure we can all relate to writing a post/message and then deciding it was wrong and not following through. An interesting case for sure.
- dogruck 9y ago
  Is there a chance that the unsent text does not reflect his wishes? Absolutely. But, is it more likely that his true wishes are closer to nothing?
  - ajnin 9y ago
    The alternative is not "nothing", but what he knows of the default distribution by law if he leaves no will. It's always dangerous to try to guess what's going on in people's heads.
    - dogruck 9y ago
      Well said. By "nothing" I should've said what you did.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
luckydude 9y ago
Me too. The article I read (linked off reddit, prolly the same one) said there were details like banking information etc that it was likely only the dead man had. So it seems like the law took a healthy look at it and came to the right conclusion.