Abstract
Many scholars have criticized the doctrine of undue influence in wills, but none so far has called for its abolition. This call is long overdue. Three objections to the doctrine of undue influence—historical, doctrinal, and psychological—warrant its abandonment. As a matter of history, courts shifted the doctrine from the realm of chancery to that of law, in the process unintentionally promoting its distortion and misuse. As a matter of doctrine, undue influence fails to meet any standard of clarity, fairness, or predictability that a legal doctrine should satisfy. Finally, as a matter of psychology, undue influence relies on false notions of selfhood and autonomy. These three inadequacies—the distortions resulting from its transposition from equity to law, the lack of fairness or doctrinal clarity attending its use, and the shaky and questionable psychological foundations on which it rests—
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.