3 ms·

> Should any contract be void if all of the parties to one side or another dies? I think we can at least say "no" if parties on the other side are responsible f

> Should any contract be void if all of the parties to one side or another dies? I think we can at least say "no" if parties on the other side are responsible for the death(s). Yes, it should be void, though maybe not quite immediately on death. How could it be otherwise, unless the the contract were somehow binding on person's heirs (either personally, or though the burden if administering an estate that they can't wind down). > If I make a contract with a mortuary to bury me (preferably) after my death, should they be released from the agreement by my death? Maybe they'll bury you, but the cemetery doesn't have to maintain your grave in perpetuity after your death: http://theconversation.com/losing-the-plot-death-is-permanent-but-your-grave-isnt-33459 http://theconversation.com/losing-the-plot-death-is-permanen...

Nasrudith 8y ago
Of course there is a use to such a construct much as philanthropy - the alternative is defacto dynasties essentially - and even an estate tax doesn't do as much good if transferred before death. Philanthropic endeavors allow for them to choose to push their values after death as a legacy instead of their blood. If they can't do that then it makes their influenced descendants the next best thing. It may be a "fair for its day" solution compared to others and something that should have some limits. Racial restrictive covenants for housings were decidedly not grandfathered in with changes of laws for a deliberately extreme example. The cemetery shouldn't be liable for maintaining the grave unfunded in perpetuity but being able to say take a fund for maintaining the grave for 100 years and pocket it is wrong. Essentially I think they should be allowed to stand when reasonable in changing circumstances.
KorematsuFred 8y ago
>cemetery doesn't have to maintain your grave in perpetuity after your death If the cemetery has charged you more for such service and made it a part of the contract obviously they have to honor it. Of course, there will always be a "reasonable effort" clause. If there is a flood, earth quake or foreign invasion the cemetery might not be able to keep its promise. I think the underlying principle is not as much about "perpetuity" as it is about whether the contract with dead must be honored even years later. I think it should be and that is the whole point of having contracts. Of course subject to reasonable efforts.
- learc83 8y ago
  >I think the underlying principle is not as much about "perpetuity" as it is about whether the contract with dead must be honored even years later. But who's going to enforce this? If the owner of a cemetery stops maintaining a grave, a random person doesn't have standing to sue. In reality what's happening is closer to honoring contracts with the still living relatives of the dead.

Nasrudith 8y ago

Of course there is a use to such a construct much as philanthropy - the alternative is defacto dynasties essentially - and even an estate tax doesn't do as much good if transferred before death. Philanthropic endeavors allow for them to choose to push their values after death as a legacy instead of their blood. If they can't do that then it makes their influenced descendants the next best thing. It may be a "fair for its day" solution compared to others and something that should have some limits. Racial restrictive covenants for housings were decidedly not grandfathered in with changes of laws for a deliberately extreme example. The cemetery shouldn't be liable for maintaining the grave unfunded in perpetuity but being able to say take a fund for maintaining the grave for 100 years and pocket it is wrong. Essentially I think they should be allowed to stand when reasonable in changing circumstances.

KorematsuFred 8y ago

>cemetery doesn't have to maintain your grave in perpetuity after your death If the cemetery has charged you more for such service and made it a part of the contract obviously they have to honor it. Of course, there will always be a "reasonable effort" clause. If there is a flood, earth quake or foreign invasion the cemetery might not be able to keep its promise. I think the underlying principle is not as much about "perpetuity" as it is about whether the contract with dead must be honored even years later. I think it should be and that is the whole point of having contracts. Of course subject to reasonable efforts.

learc83 8y ago
>I think the underlying principle is not as much about "perpetuity" as it is about whether the contract with dead must be honored even years later. But who's going to enforce this? If the owner of a cemetery stops maintaining a grave, a random person doesn't have standing to sue. In reality what's happening is closer to honoring contracts with the still living relatives of the dead.