Absorbing South Australia's Wills Act Dispensing Power in the United States: Emulation, Resistance, Expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ince 1975, SouthAustralia has been the epicentre of a notable development in the law of wills. In that year, the State Parliament passed the Wills Act Amendment Act (No 2) 1975 (SA), which amended s 12(2) of the WillsAct 1936 (SA) ('Wills Act'). Section 12(2) allows the Supreme Court to validate a will in which there has been some failure to comply with the formal requirements of the Wills Act, if the evidence in the case persuades the Court that the decedent intended the document to be his or her will. Section 12(2), widely known in the scholarly literature as the dispensing power, has had a shaping influence elsewhere in the common law world. Other Australian states and territories have enacted comparable legislation, as have most Canadian provinces. In the United States, the South Australian legislation and its case law have been the subject of sustained scholarly study, law revision activity, legislation, and case law. My main focus in this lecture will be to review the American experience, concluding with the most recent chapter, still being written, which is the story of how our absorption of the South Australian reform has led us to confront a completely unforeseen development - the enforcement of so-called digital or electronic wills.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".