It is obvious that agreements must be concluded and the will must be made to achieve mutual will. If the parties enter into an agreement but do not continue to make the will, the agreement does not apply. Joint wills and mutual wills are closely related terms used in testamentary law to describe two types of testamentary writings that can be executed by a couple to ensure that their property is sold identically. The two should not be confused with mirrors, which means two separate, identical wills, which may or may not be mutual wills. Mutual wills are most often used between husbands and wives who have remarried and have children from a previous marriage. In Re Cleaver [1981] 1, WLR Nourse J took a less strict approach when finding that identical wills resulted in proof of the existence of an agreement, but this approach was rejected in Re Goodchild [1996] 1 WLR[3], in which Carnwath J found the importance of certain evidence of the deceased`s reciprocal intentions at the time of the execution of the will. Carnwath J endorsed the floating trust analogy, first proposed by Dixon J at Birmingham v Renfrew [1937] CLR, which states that the law gives effect to intent (a testament binding on both parties) by imposing a floating trust that becomes irrevocable after the death of the first deceased and crystallizes after the death of the survivor. There are several ways to address mixed family situations and second marriage situations, so that children from a previous marriage are taken care of. The most common is the use of a trust. Many practitioners have reservations about using another technique, “reciprocal will,” which are explained below because of their dubious legal basis. Some courts have found that if the surviving party revokes their mutual will after the death of the first party, they would commit a scam because they accepted the benefit according to the will of the first party, without accepting the burden associated with it. The principal common law authority in this area was Re Oldham [1925] Kap. 75.

It discussed the eighteenth-century Dufour v Pereira case, which first received the doctrine of the form in which Lord Camden declared: “He who dies first, by his death, in turn carries the agreement in execution”. . . .