Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom
Subject: Re: Longest plan
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 13:26:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <vht6ov$1qi6f$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vhqfs2$195va$1@dont-email.me>
 <memo.20241122211037.12904f@jgd.cix.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:26:40 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3084259fb97c80085075e06d433dc5d7";
	logging-data="1919183"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/p6tRLEK74NWwCvH282TCLEalVG0olCXg="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+Kv7pjnttdBLNDzi5dw2x/TwqnY=
In-Reply-To: <memo.20241122211037.12904f@jgd.cix.co.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2495

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