From the discussion of wills in the third paragraph it can be inferred that substantive arguments as to the validity ...

Jay-Etter on February 1, 2022

Hi,
This is a difficult question. The question is asking in which of the following circumstances would substantive arguments as to the validity of a will be potentially allowed. Based on paragraph three, we know that substantive arguments concerning validity are NOT allowed when the formal reason has been invoked that a will is invalid for lack of proper witnessing. Remember, we can kinda think of formal reasons as interpreting the rules literally and substantive reasons as interpreting the meaning of the rule.

So what would allow us to consider substantive arguments? If we don't have to follow the rule to the letter in the way formal reasons prescribe, and instead allow for some interpretation.

A) Doesn't matter because we're not concerned with the format of the will, just whether we can consider it valid or not.
B) Nope, this introduces additional requirements that must be fulfilled for substantive argumentation to occur.
C) Same as B
D) same as B and C but even stronger, now there's no way out of the rule requiring proper witnessing before we can get into debates about the will.
E) This allows for some wiggle room in the rule. If the judge rules that the law can be interpreted, rather than following it to the letter, then they might allow substantive arguments under this new possibility even if there was no written witness.

Hope this helps, feel free to follow up.

jingjingxiao11111@gmail.com on February 17, 2022

Thanks