Gobbledegook
Franks v Sinclair
In a 1992 will, Jennie Franks left her entire residuary estate to her grandson.
Two years later, she made a new and, as it turned out, final will. Now, her residuary beneficiary was her son, not her grandson.
Her son was a solicitor.
He was also the individual who drafted her final will.
Did Mrs Franks truly know or approve the contents of this will? A judge decide that, No, she did not, and the will's terminology played a large role in helping him formulate his decision.
Clause 8 of Mrs Franks' will
"I give devise and bequeath all the remainder of my property whatsoever and wheresoever both real and personal not hereby or otherwise disposed of by me unto my Trustees upon trust to sell call in and convert into money all such parts of the same as shall not consist of money but so that my Trustees shall have full power to postpone such sale calling in and conversion for so long as they shall in their absolute discretion think fit without being liable for loss and after payment thereout of my debts funeral and testamentary expenses to stand possessed of the same (hereinafter called "my residuary estate") UPON TRUST for such of them my child or children as shall be living at my death and if more than one in equal shares absolutely PROVIDED THAT if any such child or children of mine shall predecease me leaving issue living at my death and who attain the age of eighteen years such issue shall take and if more than one equally the share of my residuary estate which such child or children of mine would have taken had he she or they survived me"
The judge's judgement on clause 8
"I think it very unlikely that Mrs Franks understood the effect of clause 8 just as a result of it being read out loud to her. It is expressed in the customary technical language of wills, which most lay people will find impenetrable and many may consider to be gobbledegook. There is the long preamble of the administration trusts before one reaches the principal gift, which itself refers only to "children" without any names, and is then followed by the dense language of the per stirpes substitution gift. It requires explanation. In my judgment, the reading of the will cannot be relied on as establishing Mrs Franks' knowledge and approval of its terms."
Love legalese, hate commas
Gobbledegook aside, the entire clause 8 is one long sentence: 193 words with no punctuation: no commas, no colons, no semi-colons. It has one parenthetical phrase (containing an important piece of information). Nothing else interrupts the flow.
The judge's explication totals 113 words. Although much shorter, it is broken up by five full stops. The five sentences are further subdivided by three commas.
In eschewing punctuation, the phrase in this will actually follows legal tradition. For example, Clause 5 of Princess Diana's will consists of a 233-word sentence entirely devoid of punctuation.
