Informal agreements are not recommended, as they are not legally binding (enforceable) by a court. However, they may be taken into account (as consideration) by a court in a decision. Marriage contracts are usually unilateral, but are “disguised” to claim that there is consideration for the contract on both sides. If your relationship were to end, a marriage contract could save you the stress of knowing who will have what after your separation. If your marriage has an international aspect, it is also worth making a marriage contract, as financial allowances can be made against you abroad. Certain conditions must be met before your financial agreement can be legally binding. “Just like a romantic partnership, a marriage is a financial partnership,” Wallack says. “A marriage contract is a business transaction within your relationship, so, like any other financial discussion, try to put your emotions aside and think clearly.” We believe that the proposal has been made so far by simply stating that pre-nups run a terrible risk of harming people who decide to enter them and that, with the fact that these people do not think “clearly” rationally and do not really know what is right for them to sign the agreement, this should be the reason, not to recognize them before the divorce courts. We want to overwhelm them on this point. We believe that they must prove to us that the state system is a better mechanism and that it knows what is objectively better for individuals. We have already found that there are certain terms that could theoretically be entered in pre-nups that can be considered objectively false, and in these cases we do not allow their inclusion in marriage contracts, for example.
B the addition of damage. The weight of the proposal is to show that property-sharing systems other than those imposed by the state are objectively worse for all human beings or that people are simply not in a position to make a decision. We have already talked about the second one and we believe that the proposal has an equally difficult task to prove. Consider the first fortune before marriage. Certainly, there is no objective basis for the proposal to distribute them equitably, given that only one member of the union participated in its takeover. But also the division of property during the marriage. Objectively, it`s not like assets should always be spread 50/50. . .