Forget marriage, now you can't even just live with them...
Discussion
Impasse said:
No one, yet the comments seem to suggest that the legal protection and rights afforded by marriage are applicable to this couple. There's been more than one observation of "If they were married then xyz" but they were not married, so those comments are of no relevance to this situation.
I'm just in from work but I must say, once again, a few members should actually read the case. It's blindingly obvious that this is not about marital rights-this is about how far promissory estoppel principles can be stretched. And for those that can't even be bothered to look it up, in simple terms, it means that if I promise something that effects the other parties behaviour and then go back on that promise, even though no legal relation/contract is possible, then I am still liable for my promise if by going back on my promise, there is detriment to the promisee.As I understand it but happy to be corrected.
TVR1 said:
Impasse said:
No one, yet the comments seem to suggest that the legal protection and rights afforded by marriage are applicable to this couple. There's been more than one observation of "If they were married then xyz" but they were not married, so those comments are of no relevance to this situation.
I'm just in from work but I must say, once again, a few members should actually read the case. It's blindingly obvious that this is not about marital rights-this is about how far promissory estoppel principles can be stretched. And for those that can't even be bothered to look it up, in simple terms, it means that if I promise something that effects the other parties behaviour and then go back on that promise, even though no legal relation/contract is possible, then I am still liable for my promise if by going back on my promise, there is detriment to the promisee.As I understand it but happy to be corrected.
Also the promissory estoppel element as approached by the female in this case makes it seem, whether or not it's true, that there was no possibility of the relatiohship breaking down (though at least one of her earlier ones did) so any reasonable human being would - in one rational view - have interpreted the promise to be in place while the relationship persisted.
It's fair for people in a long term relationship and making personal choices and sacrifices towards their common benefit to reach some settlement of assets, liabilities and responsibilities if the relationship breaks down. If only there were some sort of legal framework within which to formalise such a relationship.
I expect that if you worked for decades in some sort of business relationship within which it was understood that there was a common interest in the venture you might have a chance of a court granting you some consideration if things went bad - but you would have been a bloody fool not to have put it in writing.
I expect that if you worked for decades in some sort of business relationship within which it was understood that there was a common interest in the venture you might have a chance of a court granting you some consideration if things went bad - but you would have been a bloody fool not to have put it in writing.
otolith said:
It's fair for people in a long term relationship and making personal choices and sacrifices towards their common benefit to reach some settlement of assets, liabilities and responsibilities if the relationship breaks down. If only there were some sort of legal framework within which to formalise such a relationship.
I expect that if you worked for decades in some sort of business relationship within which it was understood that there was a common interest in the venture you might have a chance of a court granting you some consideration if things went bad - but you would have been a bloody fool not to have put it in writing.
I 'get' the business relationship side but when it's an emotional relationship the entire edifice is built on oxytocin and other aspects of blood and brain chemistry that are simply not amenable to rational analysis and to apply such is bizarre in all but the contractual aspect of a formalised marriage. Some may disagree I expect that if you worked for decades in some sort of business relationship within which it was understood that there was a common interest in the venture you might have a chance of a court granting you some consideration if things went bad - but you would have been a bloody fool not to have put it in writing.
The action (now abolished) for breach of promise of matrimony probably reflected a less equal society in which women had fewer opportunities to obtain employment, and in which social obloquy might be applied to a woman who gave herself physically to a man and did not marry him. It did at least give us a Savoy Opera.
There was also the action for criminal conversation, in which one man could sue another for seducing his wife. This reflected the notion of a woman as a species of property.
There was also the action for criminal conversation, in which one man could sue another for seducing his wife. This reflected the notion of a woman as a species of property.
People have to take responsibility whether thinking with the big head or the little one - but in either a business relationship or a personal one, you're less likely to get a fair settlement if there is no formal arrangement, and if your partner is unwilling to enter into one, you have to ask yourself why, and whether in the absence of such you trust them to act honourably. So while I don't find the judgement particularly unfair, nor do I have a great deal of sympathy for someone who puts themselves in that boat.
So lets understand it....
He had a home and equity
he asked if she wanted to move in with 2 daughters that were not his.
He paid everything
She saved everything that she didn't pay for rent, etc.
he paid for a car for her.
he paid for her and her daughters university expenses.
She effectively had nothing and did not add anything to the family unit as he paid it all, she had her own money and he saw the end of the relationship...
However on the never never he may have said that he would look after her so has to pay a lump sum.
Ok... I will ask this bluntly, but at the start of a relationship the bloke has sex on tap, if she promises that does she also come under the same legal attributes that he does?
Pretty sure many blokes have had it on tap and then the headaches start, etc.... is that not a breach of promise too?
He had a home and equity
he asked if she wanted to move in with 2 daughters that were not his.
He paid everything
She saved everything that she didn't pay for rent, etc.
he paid for a car for her.
he paid for her and her daughters university expenses.
She effectively had nothing and did not add anything to the family unit as he paid it all, she had her own money and he saw the end of the relationship...
However on the never never he may have said that he would look after her so has to pay a lump sum.
Ok... I will ask this bluntly, but at the start of a relationship the bloke has sex on tap, if she promises that does she also come under the same legal attributes that he does?
Pretty sure many blokes have had it on tap and then the headaches start, etc.... is that not a breach of promise too?
There isn't really a substitute for reading the full judgment, but here are two important passages from it:
"18 ...I think that the judge was wise not to be drawn into an exercise of attempted evaluation of the benefits which, as he rightly observed, flowed both ways. Mr Wynne acknowledged that there is in a case such as this a range of activities and mutual support which is simply incapable of financial quantification. The essence of the promise here upon which the proprietary estoppel was sought to be based was that the Respondent should have a home for life, on the strength of which she gave up her own secure home in which she had invested about £15,000 and in turn invested £4,000 -£5,000 as her contribution to the setting up of the new home in which she was to live with the Appellant. What the judge in effect did was to concentrate on the causal link between the assurance relied upon and the detriment asserted, as enjoined by Slade LJ in Jones v Watkins. The various asserted benefits, flowing in both directions, were the incidents of the relationship whilst it successfully subsisted rather than direct consequences of reliance upon the promise as to security.
...
20. That leaves only the question of unconscionability, which as I have already sought to stress above is not a watertight element in the estoppel but rather a feature which permeates all of its elements. It was Mr Wynne's submission that the judge lost sight of the circumstance that this was not a marriage and that it was not a relationship which was expected or intended to endure indefinitely. Since the relationship had come to an end, during the course of which the Appellant had provided for virtually all of the Respondent's essential financial needs, and those of her children, how could it be unconscionable for the Appellant to require the Respondent to leave the house? With respect, this misses the point and overlooks the judge's explicit findings as to the nature of the Appellant's promise on the strength of which the Respondent gave up her secure home. It focuses on the relationship, thereby losing sight of the nature of the promise and the detrimental reliance. The detriment to the Respondent was not that she embarked upon a relationship with the Appellant but that she abandoned her secure home in which she had invested and invested what little else she had in a home to which she had no legal title. It is the detrimental reliance which makes the promise irrevocable and leads to the conclusion, at the end of a broad enquiry, that repudiation of the assurance is unconscionable."
"18 ...I think that the judge was wise not to be drawn into an exercise of attempted evaluation of the benefits which, as he rightly observed, flowed both ways. Mr Wynne acknowledged that there is in a case such as this a range of activities and mutual support which is simply incapable of financial quantification. The essence of the promise here upon which the proprietary estoppel was sought to be based was that the Respondent should have a home for life, on the strength of which she gave up her own secure home in which she had invested about £15,000 and in turn invested £4,000 -£5,000 as her contribution to the setting up of the new home in which she was to live with the Appellant. What the judge in effect did was to concentrate on the causal link between the assurance relied upon and the detriment asserted, as enjoined by Slade LJ in Jones v Watkins. The various asserted benefits, flowing in both directions, were the incidents of the relationship whilst it successfully subsisted rather than direct consequences of reliance upon the promise as to security.
...
20. That leaves only the question of unconscionability, which as I have already sought to stress above is not a watertight element in the estoppel but rather a feature which permeates all of its elements. It was Mr Wynne's submission that the judge lost sight of the circumstance that this was not a marriage and that it was not a relationship which was expected or intended to endure indefinitely. Since the relationship had come to an end, during the course of which the Appellant had provided for virtually all of the Respondent's essential financial needs, and those of her children, how could it be unconscionable for the Appellant to require the Respondent to leave the house? With respect, this misses the point and overlooks the judge's explicit findings as to the nature of the Appellant's promise on the strength of which the Respondent gave up her secure home. It focuses on the relationship, thereby losing sight of the nature of the promise and the detrimental reliance. The detriment to the Respondent was not that she embarked upon a relationship with the Appellant but that she abandoned her secure home in which she had invested and invested what little else she had in a home to which she had no legal title. It is the detrimental reliance which makes the promise irrevocable and leads to the conclusion, at the end of a broad enquiry, that repudiation of the assurance is unconscionable."
I find it strange that the judge took her £20,000 she 'lost' and increased it by RPI to reach £28,500.
Had it been in a building society account it would not have kept pace with inflation over the same period.
Had he linked it to the rise in the value of the property it would only have increased to £26,666.
Seems he chose the highest method.
Also, although the judge perceived both parties benefited from the relationship, it seems that the woman and her children benefited far more financially than the man did. The judge states he did well in his career with her 'support' but I always wonder would someones career have been any different without that 'support'. In the majority or cases I suspect not. To not take into account the financial benefit to her and her children over the years was unfair in my opinion.
However, one thing is clear I guess. If you want to cohabit, find someone who is pennyless and never promise them a darn thing .....
Oh, and I got stung for £15,000 in a very similar situation to this for less than a year cohabiting in a house I alone purchased. I settled out of court though.
Had it been in a building society account it would not have kept pace with inflation over the same period.
Had he linked it to the rise in the value of the property it would only have increased to £26,666.
Seems he chose the highest method.
Also, although the judge perceived both parties benefited from the relationship, it seems that the woman and her children benefited far more financially than the man did. The judge states he did well in his career with her 'support' but I always wonder would someones career have been any different without that 'support'. In the majority or cases I suspect not. To not take into account the financial benefit to her and her children over the years was unfair in my opinion.
However, one thing is clear I guess. If you want to cohabit, find someone who is pennyless and never promise them a darn thing .....
Oh, and I got stung for £15,000 in a very similar situation to this for less than a year cohabiting in a house I alone purchased. I settled out of court though.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 18th October 20:24
HenryJM said:
XJ Flyer said:
Or to put it another way the type most in demand being those who are not interested in money which is just a bonus to them so can handle the bad times with the good and more interested in raising a family while she's young than chasing her career.
Which then leaves the other type who isn't either of those and who is just interested in money which she can get out of the relationship in the form of a man who has it and who is willing to spend it on her.At least until he realises his mistake in choosing the wrong type.
I'm talking about another type, those that are intelligent and successful, who are happy to be in a relationship with an equal party. Not after their money not least because they earn their own, often more than the male partner. The two of them make equal decisions in the relationship although neither one rules the other.Which then leaves the other type who isn't either of those and who is just interested in money which she can get out of the relationship in the form of a man who has it and who is willing to spend it on her.At least until he realises his mistake in choosing the wrong type.
It is a weird scenario for some men, men who seem to live in the 1950s where they are completely different to their wife with him working and her doing the cooking and cleaning, its not like that for a lot of people these days.
It seems obvious that no one will find that type of woman on the older 'used second hand market'.With the possible rare exception,of the type of relationship,which breaks up very soon while the woman is still young.In the case of a 1950's type woman who has found a modern type man who is looking for that 21st century career woman.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 18th October 20:30
The bit about "losing sight of the nature of the promise and the detrimental reliance" seems to assume aspects of the 'nature of the promise' that were not there.
Impasse said:
Yes, I read the judgement when the link was first posted. I didn't agree with the findings then and I don't now. It's a collection of ridiculous conclusions. 2+2 really does seem to equal 28500.
Understandable comment. TVR1 said:
Impasse said:
No one, yet the comments seem to suggest that the legal protection and rights afforded by marriage are applicable to this couple. There's been more than one observation of "If they were married then xyz" but they were not married, so those comments are of no relevance to this situation.
I'm just in from work but I must say, once again, a few members should actually read the case. It's blindingly obvious that this is not about marital rights-this is about how far promissory estoppel principles can be stretched. And for those that can't even be bothered to look it up, in simple terms, it means that if I promise something that effects the other parties behaviour and then go back on that promise, even though no legal relation/contract is possible, then I am still liable for my promise if by going back on my promise, there is detriment to the promisee.As I understand it but happy to be corrected.
turbobloke said:
The bit about "losing sight of the nature of the promise and the detrimental reliance" seems to assume aspects of the 'nature of the promise' that were not there.
Basically there are too many men who leave themselves liable to this type of issue by thinking it is clever to use their material earning power as a pulling method.When the fact is that method is just likely to pull the wrong type of woman.While the right type will go for the total opposite approach and those that won't are the ones to stay away from.Impasse said:
Yes, I read the judgement when the link was first posted. I didn't agree with the findings then and I don't now. It's a collection of ridiculous conclusions. 2+2 really does seem to equal 28500.
Understandable comment. XJ Flyer said:
turbobloke said:
The bit about "losing sight of the nature of the promise and the detrimental reliance" seems to assume aspects of the 'nature of the promise' that were not there.
Basically there are too many men who leave themselves liable to this type of issue by thinking it is clever to use their material earning power as a pulling method.When the fact is that method is just likely to pull the wrong type of woman.While the right type will go for the total opposite approach and those that won't are the ones to stay away from.Impasse said:
Yes, I read the judgement when the link was first posted. I didn't agree with the findings then and I don't now. It's a collection of ridiculous conclusions. 2+2 really does seem to equal 28500.
Understandable comment. There isn't a woman alive who isn't attracted to wealth. Many settle for poor men but if they had the choice...
I don't blame women at all. It's rooted in biology and they can't change that anymore than men can change their preference for slim waists and big t*ts.
The truth is we're wired up to cope with living in much simpler times before money, mass affluence or technology changed everything. We're just cavemen and cavewomen pretending to be civilised, some more successfully than others :grunt:
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff