Statement A: Future inheritance which was already partitioned among heirs while the testator is still alive is considered a valid object of an agreement. Statement B: There must al... Statement A: Future inheritance which was already partitioned among heirs while the testator is still alive is considered a valid object of an agreement. Statement B: There must always be a monetary consideration in order for a "right of first refusal" to be effective. Only Statement "B" is false. Neither is false. Both statements are false. Only Statement "A" is false.
Understand the Problem
The question presents two legal statements regarding inheritance and rights and asks the reader to identify the truth status of each statement. The goal is to analyze both statements and determine which, if any, are false.
Answer
Only Statement B is false.
Only Statement B is false. Statement A is generally considered true as future inheritance can sometimes be validly contracted upon among heirs with the knowledge and consent of the testator. Statement B is false because a 'right of first refusal' does not necessarily require monetary consideration to be effective.
Answer for screen readers
Only Statement B is false. Statement A is generally considered true as future inheritance can sometimes be validly contracted upon among heirs with the knowledge and consent of the testator. Statement B is false because a 'right of first refusal' does not necessarily require monetary consideration to be effective.
More Information
While future inheritances can be subject to agreements between heirs with the testator's consent, a 'right of first refusal' is typically viewed as a pre-emptive right that doesn’t necessarily need monetary consideration to be valid.
Tips
A common mistake is assuming that all legal agreements require monetary consideration to be valid, which isn't true for a 'right of first refusal'.
AI-generated content may contain errors. Please verify critical information
