Legality of relationships

[General Nuke Em]

How is your example a problem with contract/lease law specifically regarding to relationships instead of simply a problem with contract/lease laws?

edit - I see Langy started reading the thread 10 minutes before I did.

[Akranadas]

Oh, I dunno Langy, just thought considering the thread was titled the Legality of relationships that we were talking about relationships. I am talking about my personal expereince in regards to something similar to the article linked. I cannot comment on entering another contract with anyone else because I do not have that experience.

You had an implied, and perhaps explicit, contract whereby you would share the cost. This has nothing to do with whether you were in a relationship or not; you could enter into the same sort of contract with a complete stranger, and you'd still both be on the hook for your shares of the rent. It's the fact you agreed to share the rent that makes it potentially actionable, not that you were in a relationship.

I could have entered the same type of contract with a stranger, but I wouldn't enter it with a stranger. If I moved into a house with friends (instead of a partner) we wouldn't intertwine and become dependent upon each other for finances to pay for the bills (such as contents insurance, internet ect) where as in the relationship we did. It's not solely about the rent; its about EVERYTHING.

[Malachi]

There is certainly nothing in the article to even suggest that "no legal contract making him arguably liable was entered into", or that they "did not sign an actual contract saying he was liable for any perceived loss on her part", or that she "then changed her mind after the fact because surprise surprise the relationship fell apart", or that "Choosing to sell her flat was her decision, not his", or that "no contract in which what-is-mine-is-yours was entered into".

There is also nothing in the article saying there was a contract, or that selling her flat was not her decision, so I (possibly wrongly) default to assuming that there was no contract. Why do you assume otherwise? And then accuse me and Nuri of bias towards our preconceptions, when you yourself seem to be in a similar situation (due to there obviously being not enough information), just that your preconceptions are (awkardly) opposite?

@Gorb: I didn't say I'd keep my and my partner's stuff separate, physically. What made you think that? I just said that each thing legally belonged to only one of us, same as you mention here:

Legally, all of these belongings still belong to their rightful owner.

And that's perfectly enough. I agree this is impossible when you buy a fridge together, but hey, then you can make the purchase together, in legal terms as well, and if your relationship breaks, you can have one party pay the other their half and keep it, or just sell it and share the money.
Now, all of this might seem to you like the first thing I do in a relationship is separate all our property, put a label with a name on everything and put hidden cameras around the place to see if my girlfriend doesn't wear my underwear when I'm away. It's not like that, this separate property stuff always came pretty naturally, and didn't somehow make us less happy. I don't think being happy in a relationship is in any way dependant on how much, and if any things you own together. It is also not a hard rule I put for myself and mine in relationships - if need arose (a personal discount, prehaps), I wouldn't have a problem with, say, giving money for half the fridge to my partner and having her buy it by herself. I would do this out of trust, but I wouldn't expect to be compensated if it turned out to be a wrong decision. Because it was MY wrong decision.

[GeoffS]

There is also nothing in the article saying there was a contract, or that selling her flat was not her decision, so I (possibly wrongly) default to assuming that there was no contract. Why do you assume otherwise? And then accuse me and Nuri of bias towards our preconceptions, when you yourself seem to be in a similar situation (due to there obviously being not enough information), just that your preconceptions are (awkardly) opposite?

I haven't assumed anything, the Court decision MUST have been that there was a contract in order for them to award compensation. If you had really read any of my posts instead of continuing to assert that your assumptions were facts, you would see that I haven't taken any position on whether the Court decision was right or wrong. Me saying that you have made unsupported claims does not equate to me believing the opposite of what you believe.

Just to make it absolutely clear, once again, my position is that there is not enough information in that article for you and Nuri to reach the conclusions that you did. You did that based on your own preconceptions. What was worse was that you tried to pass them off as fact.

[Quak0r]

Any assumption about the existence of a contract is as good as any because there is no information about it present. So any claim about it's absence or it's existence is presenting a conclusion not finding it in evidence.

[Malachi]

@Geoffs: Why do you think i "assert that my assumptions are facts"? I do not. Having so little information available, I have a choice of withdrawing from the discussion completely, or assuming what I think is the most probable situation. I never claimed to know any facts except what was in the article, specifically asked if Im reading it right due to not being a native English speaker (why would they mention her studies if it's not what she spent the money on, exactly?), and adressed the options not matching my assumptions.

If you assume there must have been a contract, fine. However, I'd expect that if this was the case, such a relevant detail would have made it in the article. Hence I assume otherwise.

[Langy]

Oh, I dunno Langy, just thought considering the thread was titled the Legality of relationships that we were talking about relationships. I am talking about my personal expereince in regards to something similar to the article linked. I cannot comment on entering another contract with anyone else because I do not have that experience.

I could have entered the same type of contract with a stranger, but I wouldn't enter it with a stranger. If I moved into a house with friends (instead of a partner) we wouldn't intertwine and become dependent upon each other for finances to pay for the bills (such as contents insurance, internet ect) where as in the relationship we did. It's not solely about the rent; its about EVERYTHING.

True enough, but what I meant was that the court doesn't need to recognize your relationship in order for you to be able to sue for compensation. It's quite possible you could have successfully sued her for breach of contract when she stopped paying her half of the rent (though if it was only a verbal or implied contract, that'd be much more difficult to prove).

I haven't assumed anything, the Court decision MUST have been that there was a contract in order for them to award compensation. If you had really read any of my posts instead of continuing to assert that your assumptions were facts, you would see that I haven't taken any position on whether the Court decision was right or wrong. Me saying that you have made unsupported claims does not equate to me believing the opposite of what you believe.

I'm not sure that's actually supported by the article. It's possible the court decided that way even without saying that there was a contract; we just don't know, because the article is short on details. I'm not sure what kind of contract they could have had that would work with this decision, either - that he would take care of her and pay for all of her stuff even after they break up? That's a silly contract that I'd never agree to with a prospective girlfriend. It sounds much more likely that the court applied a marriage-like 'contract' to the relationship when they had never actually agreed to that contract in the first place. Something else entirely may have happened, too. We just don't know.

[GeoffS]

Malachi, once again you miss the point. It's a matter of law, not assumption. In order for the Court to rule that compensation was payable, they MUST HAVE accepted that there was a contract, either express or implied. Compensation can't happen otherwise.


And this is you asserting your assumptions as fact... "So she sold the flat, spent the money on her education, and then demanded cash for it from her ex-partner because she happened to be living at his place for some time?"

[Langy]

GeoffS: Are you absolutely sure about that? I don't know enough about English law to say that that's what must have happened, and I doubt Malachi does, either. Can you go into any sort of detail as to why you know this, or are you just guessing?

Also: Note that little squiggly line at the end of that sentence? That's called a question mark. You don't make an assertion of fact by asking if that's what happened.

[GeoffS]

GeoffS: Are you absolutely sure about that?

Yes.

[comradegrumpy]

@ Langy - the point about de facto relationships is that, despite the absence of a formal marriage contract, the courts have legitimate legal powers to interpret some of the formal elements of a marriage partnership into a de facto relationship. The relationship in question usually must have been of a certain duration (here in Australia, I think it's 2 years of continuous cohabitation for most legal purposes) before the courts will take the step of interpreting marriage-like elements into a de facto situation. This is largely done to stop your ex-partner laying sole claim to assets which were in fact jointly purchased. Whilst this may or may not have been the reason for the decision made by the court in this case, it seems apparent to me that this is the most likely scenario. There are many kinds of consent in contract law (from what my hazy first-year memories tell me - I never did finish my law degree) and the court is free to deem that the actions of a party imply consent. In other words, if it looks like a marriage, walks like a marriage and both parties treat it very much like a marriage (cohabitation, shared assets) then the court is free to interpret it as a marriage in some respects.

[Malachi]

And this is you asserting your assumptions as fact. . . "So she sold the flat , spent the
money on her education , and then demanded cash for it from her ex - partner because she happened to be living at his place for some time?"

Yeah, I specifically expressed my doubt if I understood that part of the article right, and indeed asked a question there.

It would be helpful if you could post a specific quote from that wiki page concerning how there's no possibility of this ruling if there was no contract.

[GeoffS]

It's really quite simple:

1. Compensation is a remedy for "Breach of Contract".
2. There can be no "Breach" unless there is a contract to breach.
3. Therefore, compensation can only be paid if there was a contract.

[Malachi]

Yeah, it is simple, and if we were sure this exact ruling followed this logic, there wouldn't be a point to this discussion.

My problem with this situation is exactly that, the way the article reads, it doesn't seem that way.

So, uh, we aren't really in disagreement here. If there was a contract, then compensation for breaching it is certainly justified, only I would highly expect the article to mention that fact.

Note that the court arbitrarly stating that there was some kind of an undocumented contract because the couple lived together for 7 years doesn't count as there actually being one, to me. A contract is something you actively and consciously agree to, not something your 7 year cohabitation with someone can be interpreted as.

[GeoffS]

Note that the court arbitrarly stating that there was some kind of an undocumented contract because the couple lived together for 7 years doesn't count as there actually being one, to me.

And this is exactly what has been wrong with everything you have said so far in the thread. You are not interested in finding out what the truth is, and even when it is shown to you you ignore it in favour of your prejudices. You want the decision to be wrong, and even though there is nothing in the original article to support that, you are insisting that it must be wrong, no matter what.

A contract is something you actively and consciously agree to, not something your 7 year cohabitation with someone can be interpreted as.

Show me where, exactly, the original article said the partner did not "actively and consciously agree to" a contract. Or are you simply asserting your assumptions as fact?

[Malachi]

What the hell?

Seriously I have admitted that I'm working with assumptions due to there being too little information multiple times already. Show me where in the article it says that there was a contract made between the couple, and I will admit that you have the facts on your side.

So far, you only mentioned that compensation is a punishment for breaching of a contract. Is it the only situation a Scottish court would enforce "compensation"? If someone caused a car accident hurting another person and then got told by the court to pay them money does another term apply, "compensation" being exclusively linked to a breach of a contract?

I'm genuinely asking you, because, unsurprisngly, I'm not educated in Scottish law, which apparently pisses you off.

Because if "compensation" could be used in other cases than breaching a contract, then the whole argument about the word "compensation" being used meaning there must have been a contract is flawed.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

GeoffS: I don't necessarily disagree with you here, but while the wiki says compensation is issued in a breach of contract I don't see anywhere where it says that's the only time compensation is issued.

[GeoffS]

Show me where in the article it says that there was a contract made between the couple, and I will admit that you have the facts on your side.

Sigh, we've been around this circle already. The article says that she was awarded compensation by the Courts. Compensation can only be awarded by the Courts in circumstances like this if they rule there has been a breach of contract. There can not, by definition, be a breach of contract unless there was a contract in the first place. The whole article is about the Court ruling that there was a contract between them, and that he breached that contract.

If someone caused a car accident hurting another person and then got told by the court to pay them money does another term apply, "compensation" being exclusively linked to a breach of a contract?

Personal injury cases, and duty of care cases, come under what is called "Tort" law rather than contract law (some legal and philosophical scholars do interpret it as a form of contract, the "Social Contract", but discussion of the validity of that theory is not really necessary for this thread). Yes, the term "compensation" can be used there too, but surely you aren't suggesting that there was anything about personal injury or duty of care in this case? Where is that mentioned in the article? This whole discussion is about whether or not there was a contract between the two parties, and whether compensation should have been paid as a result. That's pure contract law.

Oh, and compensation isn't a "punishment" for anything, that would be an award of punitive damages. Compensation is about making good losses that were incurred as a result of the breach of a contract.


@n0z3k1ll3r, It's only mentioned as one of the remedies for breach of contract, therefore it only applies if there has been a breach of a contract. Without a contract, there is nothing to compensate for.

[Langy]

You just admitted that there are other times than just breach of contract when the court can award compensation. I really think you should stop yelling at everyone who isn't a Scottish lawyer and calm down. Even if you are correct and there must be a contract for the court to award compensation, you should probably stop throwing a tantrum when other people don't take that as the gospel truth. We aren't all blessed with knowledge of Scottish law, and just taking a random person on the internet's word about the law isn't generally a good idea, so I think you can understand why we haven't rushed to hold your view of this whole thing as the One True Way of looking at it.

Also, even if the court decided there was a contract, it could have been something completely separate from the relationship. For example, if he kicked her out of the house, that could be considered an illegal eviction, which could potentially get her an award for compensation as a breach of contract, I suppose.

[GeoffS]

I am calm, have been calm all the way through this, and haven't "yelled" at anyone. It is a little frustrating when people ask me questions that I have already answered a number of times, though.

Also, even if the court decided there was a contract, it could have been something completely separate from the relationship. For example, if he kicked her out of the house, that could be considered an illegal eviction, which could potentially get her an award for compensation as a breach of contract, I suppose.

Now you have really got me confused? If he kicked her out of the house that is completely separate from the relationship? Really? And an "illegal eviction" is different to a contract, but could get her an award for compensation as a breach of contract?

[n0z3k1ll3r]

@n0z3k1ll3r, It's only mentioned as one of the remedies for breach of contract, therefore it only applies if there has been a breach of a contract. Without a contract, there is nothing to compensate for.

That doesn't follow. Whiplash is one of the injuries sustainable in a car crash, but that doesn't mean that whiplash only happens if there's been a car crash.

EDIT: Unless by "only" you mean that's the only place it's mentioned in Scottish law. Which is possible but not shown from that wiki link.

[Langy]

I am calm, have been calm all the way through this, and haven't "yelled" at anyone. It is a little frustrating when people ask me questions that I have already answered a number of times, though.

You may not have intended it, but your posts certainly have that tone. For example, post 65. You're coming off as extremely aggressive and angry at people who dare question your authority over this matter.

Now you have really got me confused? If he kicked her out of the house that is completely separate from the relationship? Really? And an "illegal eviction" is different to a contract, but could get her an award for compensation as a breach of contract?

No, the illegal eviction would be covered under contract law, I believe. It's separate from any 'contract' created by the relationship. And yes, this would be completely separate from the existence or non-existence of a relationship between the two parties. If I have a roommate for seven years, and then suddenly kick them out of the house, I have illegally evicted them (if they haven't paid anything towards the rent, it may be slightly different - not sure, and it probably depends on the jurisdiction). There are proper procedures for how to perform an eviction, and that's not one of them - if I remember right, evictions can take a long time to go through if both sides want to fight it out, and even if not you legally have to give a certain amount of notice prior to the actual eviction.

It literally does not matter that there was or was not a relationship between the two parties - it would be entirely covered in the law dealing with evictions, and not touch upon marriage or relationship laws at all, nor would it require any other sort of contract between the two parties.

[Paladin]

Meh. The main point of contention is that Malachi keeps claiming that the only form of a valid contract are explicit written contracts that one enters into knowingly, and this is simply not true in any country AFAIK. Even in the US where we tend to be the most likely of all places to just let fools suffer for their foolishness, there are many scenarios that count as implied contracts where no written or verbal agreement was ever entered into.

[Codex]

@Malachi

When we don't have enough information to base assumptions, the prudent thing to do is create different hypothetical situations based on different assumptions, not argue based on one assumption that you think suits better. I had even written a post saying "not enough information, shrugs" after your first reply on the first page, Malachi, but I deleted it because I didn't think it added anything to the discussion.

No, you're not well versed in Scottish Law, no one expects you to be. But that doesn't invalidate GeoffS's point that you are continuing on an assumption without justifying said assumption. People who try to be fair and unbiased will follow the method mentioned above.

Anyway...

[Langy]

@Malachi

When we don't have enough information to base assumptions, the prudent thing to do is create different hypothetical situations based on different assumptions, not argue based on one assumption that you think suits better. I had even written a post saying "not enough information, shrugs" after your first reply on the first page, Malachi, but I deleted it because I didn't think it added anything to the discussion.

No, you're not well versed in Scottish Law, no one expects you to be. But that doesn't invalidate GeoffS's point that you are continuing on an assumption without justifying said assumption. People who try to be fair and unbiased will follow the method mentioned above.

Anyway...

While this is true, he specifically stated that he was working with assumptions, while GeoffS (from my and Malachi's POV, most likely) has done the exact same thing but refused to admit to making any sort of assumptions.

In other words, GeoffS seems to be the better target for your post than Malachi, at least from my perspective (though Malachi is still a suitable target).

Personally, I think it would be best to say 'whatever, none of us are perfect' and stop arguing about who made what assumptions where; none of that's really relevant to the discussion at hand, which is 'do relationships other than marriage need, deserve, or currently have a marriage-like contract status whereby one party of the relationship can demand compensation from the other party of the relationship if that relationship breaks apart'.

My opinion is 'no - such relationships neither have, need, or deserve any special status like that'. In situations like the one in the article or Akranadas's personal anecdote, if the other party deserves remunerations then it's typically true that they are already covered in some fashion by current contract and other laws, and none of that has anything to do with the actual relationship; these laws would still apply even if the two parties had been cohabitating in a purely platonic manner, for example.

[LoCo]

Langy: While you may think things are fine as they currently are, the fact is that couples who have lived together for more than two years gain certain extra protections because of the investment they have made together. It's not simply about property - as Akranadas tried to explain - it's about many things that get done, money that gets spent, time that gets invested, objects that are obtained, etc. that are all only done because one or both persons believe that there is a future with the other. This believe, and the fostering of it through a long relationship, produces a contract that is arguably part of the social contract and arguably part of the commitment contract they have made implicitly. These contracts can be terminated in such a way as to keep both parties happy, but sometimes they are not.

When that happens and one party is victimized through the breaking of the contract in an 'unfair' manner, there should be compensation.

There should be a way to compensate someone for someone else being 'unfair'. It's part of the social contract at the very least and is the basis for legal systems. Fairness is justice.

[Langy]

Akrandas's example upheld my view that the law as-is already works fine. There was either an implied or implicit contract that both parties would pay their share of the rent, allowing him to reasonably sue in order to get compensation. Just because he didn't do it doesn't mean he didn't have the option.

I can't think of any other example that wouldn't either fit into this framework or be something that I don't believe should give either party compensation. Can you give any examples - any at all - that fulfill those criteria?

[Akranadas]

*sigh* It's not just about rent.

You wouldn't understand.

[LoCo]

You're going about this backwards Langy.

The law as is already has a place for relationships and compensation. You are arguing that it shouldn't. That means it is up to you to explain why relationships over two years should not have these protections under the law.

Legally, relationships where both parties are living together for more than two years gain certain protections which are already granted to marriages. In those cases, the law treats these 2+ year relationships much the same as it treats marriages. This is because, implicitly, those in such relationships have agreed to a social contract much like a marriage. It's basically an inbuilt protection for those that don't believe in marriage but still want to be in a relationship while still having some sureties of future well being.

If one or both parties don't want those laws to apply to them, then they may opt-out - as it were - and sign a document that states that neither party wants those protections. But, you know, good luck broaching the subject if the other party doesn't want to give up those protections. It might come off as predicting future doom on the relationship and you just trying to hedge your bets - which is not the healthiest attitude to go into a relationship with.

But, again, it's up to you the prove that such laws and protections are not necessary if you want to change the law.

So, why are you against long term relationships gaining some of the same protections are marriage?

Are you also against the laws and protections for those who are in a marriage?

What makes the two different? That one is an explicit contract and the other implied?

[Malachi]

The main point of contention is that Malachi keeps claiming that the only form of a valid contract are explicit written contracts that one enters into knowingly, and this is simply not true in any country AFAIK .

Sigh. Only going to adress this, since I'm busy organizing my weekend, but I never, once, stated that a contract must be on paper to be a contract. I'm perfectly aware of the existence of verbal contracts, thank you very much.

[GeoffS]

EDIT: Unless by "only" you mean that's the only place it's mentioned in Scottish law. Which is possible but not shown from that wiki link.

It is shown by the wiki that I linked. The only mention of compensation in the context of contract law in Scotland is under the heading of "Breach of Contract". That indicates that compensation in only payable in the event of a breach of contract. That's the logical interpretation as well as the legal interpretation, and is the same as in contract law in every other jurisdiction I am aware of. It's certainly the case in Australia and the USA as well as the UK.

No, the illegal eviction would be covered under contract law, I believe. It's separate from any 'contract' created by the relationship. And yes, this would be completely separate from the existence or non-existence of a relationship between the two parties.

So now you are arguing against me by agreeing with me??

while GeoffS (from my and Malachi's POV, most likely) has done the exact same thing but refused to admit to making any sort of assumptions.

No, I made no assumptions. Everything I have said is either factual information about Scottish contract law or can be read from the article linked in the opening post...

• The UK Supreme Court ruled that she was entitled to compensation - "She sued him and, after a long-running legal wrangle, judges at the Supreme Court in London have awarded her the value of the increase in her old flat that she missed out on during their seven years together."
• The compensation was a result of a contract law dispute, not a Tort law dispute - "The value of her flat when she moved out of Angus’s home in July 2009 was listed as £88,000 – £38,000 more than she sold it for six years earlier. She was awarded a payout but her ex-partner contested the judgment at the Court of Session and the wrangle went to the UK’s highest civil court."
  
• Compensation as a result of a contract law dispute can only result from a breach of contract - "Where one or more of the obligations created under the contract has failed to be performed a breach of contract is said to have occured. There are two main subheadings of remedies which may be granted in respone to a breach. These are... Compensation which is given to the party who does not breach the contract as a way of compensating any loss that may have occurred as a result of the breach"

No assumptions, just facts. If you choose not to believe them because it doesn't fit with your prejudices that's not my fault.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

It is shown by the wiki that I linked. The only mention of compensation in the context of contract law in Scotland is under the heading of "Breach of Contract". That indicates that compensation in only payable in the event of a breach of contract. That's the logical interpretation as well as the legal interpretation, and is the same as in contract law in every other jurisdiction I am aware of. It's certainly the case in Australia and the USA as well as the UK.

See that's where I think the confusion is arising; is there any indication that the compensation is being issued in the context of contract law? I thought the whole argument we were having was as to whether there was a contract or not; if there isn't, surely it's not contract law? Can compensation be issued under other parts of Scottish law?

[GeoffS]

Yes, there is factual indication that the compensation was granted under contract law...

"The value of her flat when she moved out of Angus’s home in July 2009 was listed as £88,000 – £38,000 more than she sold it for six years earlier. She was awarded a payout but her ex-partner contested the judgment at the Court of Session and the wrangle went to the UK’s highest civil court."

That's purely contract law, not Tort law.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Ok, thanks for that, I think that clears things up for me.

[Langy]

You're going about this backwards Langy.

The law as is already has a place for relationships and compensation. You are arguing that it shouldn't. That means it is up to you to explain why relationships over two years should not have these protections under the law.

Legally, relationships where both parties are living together for more than two years gain certain protections which are already granted to marriages. In those cases, the law treats these 2+ year relationships much the same as it treats marriages. This is because, implicitly, those in such relationships have agreed to a social contract much like a marriage. It's basically an inbuilt protection for those that don't believe in marriage but still want to be in a relationship while still having some sureties of future well being.

I have no idea where you're getting this idea. I've never heard of any law that says relationships over two years long get the same protections as marriage. It sounds like a common law-type marriage, but that's typically 7 years and is specifically mentioned in the article as not applying in the UK any longer (they recently outlawed common law marriages). I think you may be arguing from a specific legal framework that only exists in the area you live in, in which case my answer is 'I don't live in Australia'.

So, why are you against long term relationships gaining some of the same protections are marriage?

Are you also against the laws and protections for those who are in a marriage?

What makes the two different? That one is an explicit contract and the other implied?

I don't believe there is an implicit contract with a relationship of only two years. I do believe that the 'protections' of marriage go too far sometimes, specifically in regards to divorce, alimony, and child support (such as forcing an ex-husband to pay child support for a child that is the result of his ex-wife's extramarital affair, and thus not his child at all, or paying enough alimony to support the ex-partner in the lifestyle they became accustomed to during the marriage rather than just enough to get by).

*sigh* It's not just about rent.

You wouldn't understand.

From what I understand, that was the major financial issue. Others would be things like utility bills, etc. Again, those would be covered under the same philosophy as the rent issue - there was an implied or explicit contract that you'd share the costs.

Now, if you're talking about non-financial issues, then yeah, they suck, but you should not get compensation for non-financial issues. That's just silly, and allowing someone to sue an ex-partner for 'heartbreak' or something is a terrible, terrible idea.

[Malachi]

Yeah, GeoffS, now it's pretty clear to me too. We could have kind of avoided all that rabble if you just clarified that from the beginning.

[Danustar]

Not sure if this even fits the discussion .. but I'll let you have it cos I sent the last email to the solicitor this afternoon so the timing's perfect lol.

Was married 14 years then the wife left to pursue an adulterous relationship. I've now conceded to her taking 70%.
I understand my "future earning potential" is greater than hers because I was out buiding a career while she was having our two kids who, we now care for 50/50.

What's frustrating is the complete lack of accountability for actively breaking the relationship. I still haven't had it explained to me how, if marriage is the most highly revered covenant in our society, someone can just opt out without compensating the other for dishonouring their investment. She cheated and left. The relationship disintegrated at her hand. Am I not a victim of something here? And then .. 70 percent?

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to be clear of her and I'll make that money back but it really doesn't seem .. just.
Australia btw.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

relationships are at-will, they can't really be anything else. If someone cheats it could be anything from regretted inebriation to an expression of long-term dissatisfaction with the relationship. Does it really matter how a relationship ends? It seems like a waste of everyones time trying to determine who is at "fault" for a relationship's failure. And indeed fault-based marriage law has a long and disreputable history.

[A7K]

If she wanted to separate from Danustar she should have filed for divorce, not participated in an adulterous relationship. If you break your contract in marriage you should be somehow held accountable, not be given 70% of the holdings. She is essentially being rewarded for breaking her marriage contract and violating the trust of her husband, I cant think of any situation where someone should be rewarded for doing wrong.

I also think its a point of contention that some of us want division of a relationship in the legal sense to be completely quantifiable, no compensation for emotional damage and whatnot. How do you even quantify "emotional damage"? How exactly does one break that down into a financial sum?

Also how does a judge conclude that there is an implied contract? What kind of proof is required under Scottish law to prove that the couple entered into an implied contract? Because if the judges decision was merely arbitrary than many of the points made in this thread still stand. Its not so much if the ruling itself was right for me, but more about what circumstances give the judge the ability to rule that a particular relationship is an implied contract similar to marriage?

[Codex]

I don't believe there is an implicit contract with a relationship of only two years. I do believe that the 'protections' of marriage go too far sometimes, specifically in regards to divorce, alimony, and child support (such as forcing an ex-husband to pay child support for a child that is the result of his ex-wife's extramarital affair, and thus not his child at all, or paying enough alimony to support the ex-partner in the lifestyle they became accustomed to during the marriage rather than just enough to get by).

I pretty much agree with all you say, especially in Danustar's case it clearly goes too far, but with regards to implicit contract, it's not to do with length of time at all, it's to do with if there's an implicit contract (fuck the what I'm so shattered after graduation) agreement, which the court judges on based on the parties' preceding behaviour.

E.g. "let's move in and rent an apartment together"
Then the court can very well rule that there was an implicit contract to pay bills together, even if no piece of paper was signed, no actual verbal agreement about bills or even the word bills is mentioned.

Now I don't know how one might make an implied contract with regards to relationships, but as I say, I lack the experience to talk about such things.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

If she wanted to separate from Danustar she should have filed for divorce, not participated in an adulterous relationship. If you break your contract in marriage you should be somehow held accountable, not be given 70% of the holdings. She is essentially being rewarded for breaking her marriage contract and violating the trust of her husband, I cant think of any situation where someone should be rewarded for doing wrong.

Why is it relevant who did 'wrong'? Again. relationships are at will. Noone has an obligation to their significant other to continue a relationship.

[Codex]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony. In terms of legal recognition, most sovereign states and other jurisdictions limit marriage to two persons of opposite sex or gender in the gender binary, and some of these allow polygynous marriage. In the 21st century, several countries and some other jurisdictions have legalized same-sex marriage. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity.


People marry for many reasons, including: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious.

Bold italicised words are my emphasis.

It's a contract that for a lot of people determine your financial status, an agreement to behave in a certain way. In the same way that a contract demands compensation from the wrongdoer, it makes sense for wedlock to seek a wrongdoer, if you codify it as a contract.

Now I don't believe in such things, but I can see why they differentiate between fault and no-fault divorces.

[Langy]

Why is it relevant who did 'wrong'? Again. relationships are at will. Noone has an obligation to their significant other to continue a relationship.

Why should she get 70% of the marriage's assets, especially when he seems to be the one making the most money? And while it's true that relationships are at-will, breaking a contract typically has some kind of penalty attached, and she's the one who chose to break the contract.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Fault divorces are stone age. Does anyone disagree that marriages can be dissolved at will, one second to the next? What practical legal distinction-aside from emotional anguish- can you draw between cheating and divorce followed by a new relationship?

I mean seriously. As described, the courts basis for the high award was that she put her career on hold to take care of the kids. It has nothing to do with how the relationship ended. This is incredibly common. The courts are trying to equitably divide resources on assets based on a lot more factors than just 50/50.

I submit there is no such thing as a wrongdoer in a marriage. I mean hell. Lots of people get cheated on without the relationship breaking up. That's not me passing any judgements whatsoever - it's just a statement that everything is down to the continued willingness of both parties to be in a relationship. And if that doesn't exist then it's over. Bam.

Perhaps more to the point, does anyone really think it is a courts business to try and hash out who is at 'fault' for ending a relationship? I mean, Gah!

Why should she get 70% of the marriage's assets, especially when he seems to be the one making the most money? And while it's true that relationships are at-will, breaking a contract typically has some kind of penalty attached, and she's the one who chose to break the contract.

Because marriages are not that kind of contract! Viewing them like that is crazy. It's not like you're trying to figure out how to pass on the family farm. Long term relationships often involve division of labor, most stereotypically the stay at home mom and the working husband. This division of labor often results in vastly differing ability/potential to support and take care of ones self if a relationship ends.

I mean seriously. Who the fuck enters into a relationship on such a cold basis? Prenups do exist, but they are explicitly seperate from marriages (which is why they have a different word) and usually involve the sequestration of pre-existing wealth (as opposed to applying weird conditions on joint assets.)

[Paladin]

If you're going with a pure no-fault system then it should always be a 50/50 split (It is, in California). There's a significant difference between taking an action while under contract specifying you will not take that action, and dissolving the contract so that you can take that action. One is irresponsible and exposes the partner in the contract to unanticipated risks which he or she had a reasonable expectation would not happen, because of the contract.

Now, I'm no particular fan of sexual monogamy, but if you agree to it, you should keep to your agreement until such time as you have dissolved the agreement and the other party no longer has any right or reason to expect otherwise. Anything else is an unfair deception that has legitimate issues regarding personal safety amongst others.

Beyond which, I think giving 70% due to future earnings potential differences when one partner is already moving into a new relationship is ridiculous. He or she already has a new partner who can account for any shortfalls, so why should the old partner (Who is now flying solo and therefore at a slight disadvantage in that regard) be required to compensate the other for income disparity as individuals? The entire point of legal regulation of marriage contracts is that a married person is not an individual, but a corporation of sorts.

Now, again, I feel that open marriages are superior to traditional monogamy, but where a genuine contract of monogamy exists, and one individual breaks that contract, I do in fact feel that the judge should say "Tough luck, hope the party you broke your contractual obligations with is willing to provide for you. No reason your old partner should have to since you've clearly already chosen a new one."

[Vintage]

@Paladin

I've known several men who have had their ex-wives dating another man but refusing to marry them to continue milking the alimony. I agree completely with what you said, such gaming of the system should not be allowed.

[Langy]

Fault divorces are stone age. Does anyone disagree that marriages can be dissolved at will, one second to the next? What practical legal distinction-aside from emotional anguish- can you draw between cheating and divorce followed by a new relationship?

No, they can't. There's a specific process for dissolving a marriage, and while it can be done at will, it can't be done in a single second. You have to file for divorce/etc. You can't just up and say 'I'm divorced now!' - and you have to inform the other party to the divorce, too. With cheating, none of those things apply, especially the 'inform the other party' bit and the 'file for divorce' bit. Big legal distinctions.

I mean seriously. As described, the courts basis for the high award was that she put her career on hold to take care of the kids. It has nothing to do with how the relationship ended. This is incredibly common. The courts are trying to equitably divide resources on assets based on a lot more factors than just 50/50.

I honestly think that's the opposite of what should have happened. So what if she took care of the kids? I'm not a fan of marriage making all assets 'joint' assets. Instead, the 'ideal' would be a split based upon expected assets at time of divorce given they never had the relationship at all, possibly with a penalty in there if the marriage contract is broken by either party. This is one reason among many I will never, ever marry without a prenup in place.

I submit there is no such thing as a wrongdoer in a marriage. I mean hell. Lots of people get cheated on without the relationship breaking up. That's not me passing any judgements whatsoever - it's just a statement that everything is down to the continued willingness of both parties to be in a relationship. And if that doesn't exist then it's over. Bam.

Perhaps more to the point, does anyone really think it is a courts business to try and hash out who is at 'fault' for ending a relationship? I mean, Gah!

Definitely not, but they can determine who broke the contract of marriage. And I submit that your idea that nobody can do any wrong in a marriage is a silly one. If a wife murders her husband in his sleep while she's having sex with his brother, she's a wrongdoer.

Because marriages are not that kind of contract! Viewing them like that is crazy. It's not like you're trying to figure out how to pass on the family farm. Long term relationships often involve division of labor, most stereotypically the stay at home mom and the working husband. This division of labor often results in vastly differing ability/potential to support and take care of ones self if a relationship ends.

Why aren't they that kind of contract? From my point of view, marriages are a contract like any other, and they should obey contract law like any other.

And yes, the division of labor results in differing ability and potential to support and take care of oneself after the relationship ends, but one thing that should never happen is require that 'support' be 'at the level they have become accustomed to'. It should be either basic, subsistence-level support or, at most, be based upon expected earning potential at time of divorce given the relationship never happened. What should never happen is one party getting tens of thousands in alimony if they never graduated from high school just because they were lucky enough to marry into a rich family.

[Codex]

Just spoke to my mother (trained in English law) about the case at the beginning of the thread:

If someone is in the habit of being supported by someone, even for example a friend, if he constantly pays for you and there seems to be an agreement that he will pay for your expenses and you acknowledge it, the loss of it is sufficient for a claim of loss of maintenance. And that's just with a friend, not even cases of Alimony or divorce of whatever.

More to the point:
Her interpretation of the case, based on the information given, is that there was a change of circumstances for the worse for Jessamine. The courts must have ruled that there was a contract (implicit or otherwise) when they moved in together, and this caused a change of circumstances for the worse, because the apartment she sold is worth almost 40,000 pounds more than it did back when she sold it. That is a valid claim that is upheld in law and now in precedent. Whether you agree with that is a different matter.

[Argonaut]

Marriage is simply a raw shitty deal for men

Err, from my own experience, MARRIAGE isn't a raw shitty deal for men. However,

As a result of experience of almost all of my male friends who have either co-habited or married a woman and have children involved have got really raw and shitty deal when the relationship breaks down.

The Breakdown of a marriage/relationship with children involved is a raw and shitty deal for men, but, men are pretty bad at obtaining proof of their continuing involvement in the childs life. One of my finest friends has a child with a previous girlfriend. She refuses to let him see his son, but he still does everything necessary to make his case when the time finally comes for him to press the matter of being a part of his sons life (the child is 5 and the father doesn't want to traumatise the boy by having huge and bitter fights. He'll wait it out and fight when the time is right). Now this guy has brought birthday presents, christmas presents and cards etc which have all been returned. He has kept every single one for the entire five years and keeps receipts for anything he sends over (new school uniform and such).

The courts appear to favour women, so men must take a very active and agressive role in proving their willingness to be involved in a childs life. Women do not necessarily need to prove they want to be a part of the childs life. Paladin summed up many of the challenges in a much earlier post.

Oh, and, You never see a woman climbing Big Ben dressed as Wonderwoman to try to see her kids. Olny men are driven to such lengths. This suggests the struggle to see their children is much harder for a man than a woman.

[Mullertime]

Now I remember why I'm single

Call me an unromantic bastard... but I really question the 'input' element of divorce cases - in terms of who put in more and gave up more. Sorry to be cold, but I think the term "Tough shit, that's your fault" applies here. In my last relationship - I made inputs and had to give up some things... but all of those were my choices and I accept them as such. Personally, I think it'd be immature of me to say "Oh I put in [x] and [y]" and get a 3rd party to enforce a return. That's like telling a casino owner that you invested £300 in a slot-machine and that he should rig it to give you an output. If a person gives up elements of their life to be with another - To me, that's their choice. If they didn't consider the repurcussions, then that's just being careless in my honest opinion. I mean, where do you draw the line? "I got a tattoo of their name on my chest. They should get tattoo saying 'I'm a cheating bastard' on theirs"

Cold as it sounds - No one is under obligation to repay an input. Whilst it's certainly fair / moral / nice - Unless there's a specified agreement of protocol (i.e. You do [x] and I agree to [y]), then there technically isn't an obligation for the other party to reciprocate (not saying it's pleasant if they don't or that the giver shouldn't feel upset)

I mean someone I know was whining about their friend not putting in effort, saying "I put in the effort to call them, see them... and they don't ring me" - Sorry, but whose fault is that? It's like me when I was younger and moaned about how I'd listen to girls talk about their problems for ages, but she'd then go off with another guy (Majorly Friend-Zoned!)... I was unfairly believing that inputting my time obliges the woman in question to fancy me and repay with sexy time. The world just doesn't work that way

@TheDeadlyShoe

I completely agree with you that fault-based decisions sit in murky, grey waters - But to me, if that element is being left out; then the gender element (who's come off worse) also needs to be left out. Danustar's raw deal is a prime example: The spouse is being unfairly favoured. To me, you can't take sides on one account (gender / input) but not take sides on another (blame). It's one of those things that either have to be completely black or white. You either have to not get involved and cut things squarely - or you have to take everything into consideration. If a person's gender or working potential is a factor - then culpability, input and the like should also be taken into consideration. To me, it's unfair to cherry-pick the elements of a breakdown to decide how the end result should be, whilst completely disregarding others. It's like having a court case with half of the evidence erased... so the only thing the jury have to work with are location, phase of the moon and the dental records of the deceased