Usually interpreted as something the testator would like to occur but is not enforceable.

Usually interpreted as something the testator would like to occur but is not enforceable.

• A. Ordinary language
• B. Precatory language
• C. Expressive clause
• D. Mandatory instruction

Answer: (B)

Precatory language expresses a wish or preference rather than a binding directive. In wills, when the testator uses phrases like “I would like,” “I hope,” or similar wording about future distributions or actions, courts typically treat that as a nonbinding request or wish. It signals what the testator would like to happen, but it does not impose a legal obligation on the executor or beneficiaries, so it is not enforceable as a directive. This differs from mandatory instructions, which use clear commands like “shall” or “must” and create enforceable duties for the executor. Expressive clauses convey sentiment but don’t create enforceable obligations, and ordinary language refers to the plain wording rather than a distinct enforceability category. Thus, the term that best fits the description is precatory language.

Precatory language expresses a wish or preference rather than a binding directive. In wills, when the testator uses phrases like “I would like,” “I hope,” or similar wording about future distributions or actions, courts typically treat that as a nonbinding request or wish. It signals what the testator would like to happen, but it does not impose a legal obligation on the executor or beneficiaries, so it is not enforceable as a directive.

This differs from mandatory instructions, which use clear commands like “shall” or “must” and create enforceable duties for the executor. Expressive clauses convey sentiment but don’t create enforceable obligations, and ordinary language refers to the plain wording rather than a distinct enforceability category. Thus, the term that best fits the description is precatory language.