yes the stamp violates the will. you have to get value for your money and paying $1.25M for a 24 cent stamp is not getting value for your money
(because you could have just bought a 24 cent stamp!)if you bought it as a collector piece thats fine but not as an actual stamp, in fact the post office should not have even honored it, when they found out about the mistake the stamp was recalled so it never offically was a stamp to be used for its intended purpose.
I always thought the stamp violated the terms because he couldn't "destroy what is inherently valuable." That stamp was valuable, mailing it rendered it worthless.
shareI disagree. You are allowed to use something for what it was created for. A stamp was created to be used to mail something.
If the stamp was a violation of the will, the same could be said about the champagne. It was valuable and that value was destroyed when someone drank it.
I hadn't thought of that, that the stamp was used for its intended purpose. Hmm. Good call. I like that. Although my hubs disagrees. He still thinks it's destroying what was deemed valuable. ?
That point in the movie always bugged me, how they could let that "error" slide. Now I get it. Lol. Thanks.
Im interested on what your husband says about the champagne then. And how would he differentiate the two things? I mean if using something is the same as destroying it, then Monte couldnt use anything other than services.
share"You are allowed to use something for what it was created for. A stamp was created to be used to mail something."
Exactly no one in the movie said anything along the lines of, "You are allowed to use something for what it was created for."
"If the stamp was a violation of the will"
It was, due to the "can't destroy what is inherently valuable" clause.
"the same could be said about the champagne."
That's a violation too, assuming the value of the champagne was collector value due to being old/rare/whatever. If it was champagne that was bought at the same price that normal retailers sell it for when new, then it isn't a violation.
The "value for your money" referenced the hiring of people. It was not directed at purchases. He couldn't destroy anything of value, like a dozen Picasso's, or just give it away, buying the Hope Diamond for some bimbo.
Even though the value rule doesn't apply he still adhered to it. Monty purchased a postage stamp for what is was valued and used it for its original intended use. He got value from it when the post office delivered the postcard. Once he put it in the mail he no longer owned it.
I'm not a philatelist but I'm curious as to how much a rare stamp like that is devalued when it's been cancelled.
He bought a rare stamp (an asset) and then to get rid of the asset's value, mailed it to the firm on a postcard, which did not violate the will's terms because stamps are used like that.
As to the post office, maybe they didn't notice it. You had to look closely to see the error, remember?