The Troubled Relationship of Will Contacts and Spousal Protection: Time for an Amicable Separation

We live in a society with rapidly changing familial norms. Statistics show that one out of every two marriages ends in divorce, and even higher divorce rates are projected. The number of people who remarry following a divorce also is increasing. Much has been written about the effect of the changing family patterns on estate planning. In the era when having only one spouse and one set of children was the norm, it was fairly simple to develop a rational system for dividing the person\u27s estate among spouse and children. In recent decades, however, the growing number of multiple marriages has helped set the stage for a conflict that often occurs between the children from one marriage and the spouse of another. Virtually every state recognizes the validity of contracts to make wills. Some mechanism also exists in each state for protecting a surviving spouse from intentional or unintentional total disinheritance. A recurring problem arises when the rights of a promisee or a third-party beneficiary of a will contract come into conflict with the spousal right to receive a share of a decedent\u27s estate. Often, the spouse claiming protection is a second, or later, spouse, and the contract beneficiaries are children from a previous marriage. Courts are divided sharply on who should prevail in such a conflict, and too often, the holdings appear to rest more on a desire to reach the “right” result based on the particular facts of a case than on careful analysis or consistent policy. The conflict suggests the possibility of applying a number of bodies of law: (1) contract law; (2) property law; (3) probate law, and (4) family law. Courts have used some or all of these in resolving this type of conflict. This Article explores the conflict in the context of the policies underlying recognition of validity of will contracts and protection of surviving spouses. The Article proposes a rationale for resolving this difficult and important issue. Before considering the soundness of the case law, it is useful to examine the history and use of will contracts and the structure and purposes of spousal protection

Prototype system for supporting the incremental modelling of vague geometric configurations

In this paper the need for Intelligent Computer Aided Design (Int.CAD) to jointly support design and learning assistance is introduced. The paper focuses on presenting and exploring the possibility of realizing learning assistance in Int.CAD by introducing a new concept called Shared Learning. Shared Learning is proposed to empower CAD tools with more useful learning capabilities than that currently available and thereby provide a stronger interaction of learning between a designer and a computer. Controlled computational learning is proposed as a means whereby the Shared Learning concept can be realized. The viability of this new concept is explored by using a system called PERSPECT. PERSPECT is a preliminary numerical design tool aimed at supporting the effective utilization of numerical experiential knowledge in design. After a detailed discussion of PERSPECT's numerical design support, the paper presents the results of an evaluation that focuses on PERSPECT's implementation of controlled computational learning and ability to support a designer's need to learn. The paper then discusses PERSPECT's potential as a tool for supporting the Shared Learning concept by explaining how a designer and PERSPECT can jointly learn. There is still much work to be done before the full potential of Shared Learning can be realized. However, the authors do believe that the concept of Shared Learning may hold the key to truly empowering learning in Int.CAD

Goal Directed Conflict Resolution and Policy Refinement

Peer reviewedPostprin

Boundary disputes - a clash of wills or a Shakespearean tragedy?

Boundary disputes between adjoining owners and the issue of boundary repair and resolution have been the subject of dissertations for doctorates’ in philosophy to social commentary by Shakespeare. Lord Hoffmann in the House of Lords appeal court during summation in Alan Wibberley Building Limited v. Insley 1999 eloquently expressed the folly of litigation over boundary disputes when he said, 'Feelings run high and disproportionate amounts of money are spent. Claims to small and valueless pieces of land are pressed with the zeal of Fortinbras's army.

A Formalization of the Theorem of Existence of First-Order Most General Unifiers

This work presents a formalization of the theorem of existence of most general unifiers in first-order signatures in the higher-order proof assistant PVS. The distinguishing feature of this formalization is that it remains close to the textbook proofs that are based on proving the correctness of the well-known Robinson's first-order unification algorithm. The formalization was applied inside a PVS development for term rewriting systems that provides a complete formalization of the Knuth-Bendix Critical Pair theorem, among other relevant theorems of the theory of rewriting. In addition, the formalization methodology has been proved of practical use in order to verify the correctness of unification algorithms in the style of the original Robinson's unification algorithm.Comment: In Proceedings LSFA 2011, arXiv:1203.542

Resolving Conflict through Explicit Bargaining

This article analyzes the impact of conciliatory initiatives on conflict resolution in two-party bargaining. It specifically develops and tests a theory of unilateral initiatives derived from Osgood\u27s (1962) notion of Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension Reduction (GRIT). The major propositions of the theory indicate that, given a pattern of mutual resistance or hostility, unilateral initiatives and tit-for-tat retaliation in response to punitive action will produce more conciliation and less hostility by an opponent. To test the theory, a bargaining setting was created in a laboratory experiment in which parties exchanged offers and counteroffers on an issue across a number of rounds while also having the option to engage in punitive action against one another. The results indicated that (1) unilateral initiatives produced more concession making and less hostility than a reciprocity strategy, and (2) tit-for-tat retaliation heightened hostility initially but reduced it over time. The article suggests some general, abstract conditions under which two parties in conflict can produce conciliation and reach agreements without the intervention of third parties

Arguing and negotiating in the presence of social influences

Postprin

The Goals and Assumptions of Conflict Management in Organizations

[Excerpt] This chapter examines how different goals and assumptions about conflict in organizations shape perspectives on managing conflict and resolving disputes. Four frames of reference are described: the neoliberal egoist perspective emphasizing the operation of the free market as the ideal method of resolving conflict; the critical perspective emphasizing broad societal divisions between labor and capital as the source of conflict; the unitarist perspective viewing conflict as primarily a function of interpersonal differences and organizational dysfunction, which can be remedied by improved managerial practice; and the pluralist perspective emphasizing the mixture of common and competing interests in the employment relationship, which requires institutional interventions to remedy the inequality of bargaining power that produces conflict. The pluralist perspective may best balance the often competing goals of efficiency, equity, and voice. It is described further in this chapter together with its implications for the design of dispute resolution procedures and conflict management systems