Professor Dukeminier and I agree on most of the important points concerning perpetuity law and perpetuity reform. We agree that the Rule Against Perpetuities still serves a socially useful function of limiting dead hand control, and should not be abolished. We also agree that the common law Rule is needlessly harsh and should be softened. Finally, we agree on the type of reform that is most desirable-waitand- see. Our only disagreeihent-concerns the best method of marking off the wait-and-see perpetuity pe]iqod-the period of time during which dispositions that would have been invalid under the common law Rule are to be given the chance to work themselves out. There are substantial parts of his argument on this latter point, set forth in Perpetuities: The Measuring LivesI that I do not find convincing.
Waggoner, Lawrence W. "Perpetuities: A Perspective on Wait-and-See." Colum. L. Rev. 85 (1985): 1714-29.