Re: Longest plan

On 11/22/2024 4:10 PM, John Dallman wrote:

In article <vhqfs2$195va$1@dont-email.me>, petertrei@gmail.com
(Cryptoengineer) wrote:

On 11/21/2024 4:00 AM, Charles Packer wrote:

Do you have a source for this rather bizarre provision?

>
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/30/1167042594/disney-desantis-board-reed
y-creek-charles
>
Key sentence:
"In this case, the declaration will continue "until twenty one (21)
years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of
King Charles III."

 The litigation on that could be highly amusing. A court would have
trouble interpreting it as anything shorter than 21 years after the death
of the last of Charles III's descendants who were living at the time the
contract was signed. Since he has several infant grandchildren, this
locks things up for about a century at minimum.
 

That's the intent, and this isn't that wacko a provision, in this
area of law.
In terms of 'longest plan', I pointed out that there *are* some
actual perpetuities out there:
I said:
 >But there are perpetual contracts from before the law changed
 >which  are still valid. The most famous example is a Dutch
 >water bond issued in 1648 which is still paying interest.
 > https://dailyinvestor.com/world/32751/the-worlds-oldest-bond-still-paying-interest-375-years-later/
Of course, Keith missed that.
pt