Marriage & Divorce

Hagar

This may seem like a strange question but just bear with me for a minute.

Is marriage a legally binding contract?

Anyone getting married in Ireland today is aware that divorce exists so they realise that marriage as a contract may be terminated by either party at some time in the future given legitimate reasons to do so. Fair enough.

Now what about people who got married before divorce was possible? They entered into the contract on the basis that there was no way to nullify it. Quite serious really but accepted as binding by both parties and the contract freely entered into with full knowledge and consent on that basis.

Here's my $64 question. Is a marriage which pre-dates the introduction of divorce any different to a marriage after divorce was introduced? And if not, why not?

For the record, myself and Mrs Hagar are getting along just fine thanks.

grumpytrousers

Different in what sense? That folks who got married before divorce wasn't legalised shouldn't be allowed get divorced on the grounds that the package they signed up for didn't envisage such a thing? Surely the divorce legislation only came in as a response to the amount of couples experiencing marriage difficulties and for which there *was* no remedy.

You're right that marriage is, in a sense, a contract, but by and large family law is a, (sorry) law unto itself; where other areas of the law seek to apportion blame, award damages, adjudge rights and wrongs, the ethos of family law *tends* to be something along the lines of making matters run as smoothly as possible. That it may not do so would be down to, largely practitioners, and to an extent to intransigence on the part of parties who feel vulnerable/emotional/hard-done-by.

not an answer to yer question as such, but perhaps might give yer somethign to think about.

My best regards to Mrs H, obv!!!

Gobán Saor

Hagar wrote:

Is marriage a legally binding contract?

Yes. Of course. With specific statutory provision made to override its terms in certain circumstances.

Hagar wrote:

Now what about people who got married before divorce was possible? They entered into the contract on the basis that there was no way to nullify it. Quite serious really but accepted as binding by both parties and the contract freely entered into with full knowledge and consent on that basis.

Again, statute law can supercede private contractual arrangements.

Hagar wrote:

Here's my $64 question. Is a marriage which pre-dates the introduction of divorce any different to a marriage after divorce was introduced? And if not, why not?

No difference whatsoever - statute law applies equally to both.

Hagar wrote:

For the record, myself and Mrs Hagar are getting along just fine thanks. [/LEFT]

Delighted to hear it:cool:

Hagar

Are there any other types of contract between two persons that can be retroactively changed by statute or can any contract be retroactively changed by statute?

If so is there really any such thing as a legally binding contract?

gonk

Hagar wrote:

Are there any other types of contract between two persons that can be retroactively changed by statute or can any contract be retroactively changed by statute?

As I understand it, landlords and tenants cannot contract out of the rights and obligations created by the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.

For example, if a landlord gets a tenant to sign a 12 month lease, and the tenant subsequently decides to leave after, say, three months, regardless of what the lease says the landlord has no redress against the tenant provided the statutory notice is provided.

Victor

Hagar wrote:

If so is there really any such thing as a legally binding contract?

Of course, its merely a matter that the law has changed, as it is wont to do.

gonk wrote:

For example, if a landlord gets a tenant to sign a 12 month lease, and the tenant subsequently decides to leave after, say, three months, regardless of what the lease says the landlord has no redress against the tenant provided the statutory notice is provided.

Can you demonstrate this?

Hagar

Victor wrote:

Of course, its merely a matter that the law has changed, as it is wont to do.

Don't many laws have an effective date, and don't apply to a specific circumstance prior to the enactment of the law such as a change in Excise duty for instance? Why should the divorce laws not be similar in enactment?

gonk

Victor wrote:

Can you demonstrate this?

S.18 of the act states:

18.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no provision of any
lease, tenancy agreement, contract or other agreement (whether
entered into before, on or after the commencement of this Part) may
operate to vary, modify or restrict in any way section 12 or 16.

S.54 states:

54.—(1) No provision of any lease, tenancy agreement, contract
or other agreement (whether entered into before, on or after the
relevant date) may operate to vary, modify or restrict in any way a
provision of this Part.

The entire act is here:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2004/a2704.pdf

See also the PRTB's explanatory leaflets here:
http://www.prtb.ie/downloads.htm

Gobán Saor

Hagar wrote:

Don't many laws have an effective date, and don't apply to a specific circumstance prior to the enactment of the law such as a change in Excise duty for instance? Why should the divorce laws not be similar in enactment?

Depends entirely on what the Act says. There is no particular reason why a law that regulates a particular type of contract should not effect contracts already in existence. EG the Minimum Wage Act applies to all contracts of employment, even those entered into before the enactment of the Act.