Facts
A husband and wife were married in Czechoslovakia, which was the domicile of the wife. The husband was domiciled in Germany as it was his domicile of origin.
The wife and husband had intended and agreed to leave Germany and establish a permanent home in Johannesburg at the time of the marriage as the husband had been promised a permanent job. After moving to Johannesburg, the husband was transferred to Durban, in which the couple had the intention of settling there permanently and the husband was naturalised as a British subject.
In 1984 the husband died. There was no ante-nuptial agreement, which meant that the couple was married out of community of property as they were married under German law.
Issue
Which law is applied to determine the matrimonial propriety rights of spouse in absence of an ante-nuptial agreement?
Ratio
In the absence of an ante-nuptial contract, the matrimonial regime of spouses not domiciled in the same country is subsequently governed by the law of the husbands domicile at the time of the marriage and not by the domicile intended to be acquired imm...
situation, are better able to support and help their child. Takes place at the British
Getting a divorce was very difficult, most nations would not even end a marriage by having legal consent. Court trials were expensive which made it hard for a women to afford. Even if a divorce was granted the women would not receive anything. The children, land, house, and all of her belongings would be given to the man. If the father choose he could take the children away from the mother at any time and give them to someone else to raise and care for.
Reasoning: The intentions of the marriage were good. He wanted to end the feud of the two families which worked. Even though it took the
remarried for the good of the kingdom. The king died, and the queen took over the duties
Mr. and Mrs. Loving were residents of the small town of Central point, Virginia. They were family friends who had dated each other since he was seventeen and she a teenager. When they learned that marriage was illegal for them in Virginia, they simply drove over the Washington, D.C. for the ceremony. They returned to Virginia and were arrested the following month for violating the anti-miscegenation statute, which was declared in the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. Commonwealth’s Attorney Bernard Mahon obtained the warrant for Richard Loving and “Mildred Jeter”. Mildred’s maiden name was on the warrant because in Virginia a marriage between a white and black was considered void. In October 1958, the indictments of Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter were bought before the court and on January 6, 1959, Richard and Mildred pled not guilty to the charges. Changing their pleas to guilty and waiving their right to a jury trial due to fear and optimism for a favorable punishment, the Lovings took the plea bargain. The Circuit Court judge that was presiding over the case, Judge Leon M. Bazile, did not see favor on them and sentenced them to one year in jail. Yet, at the same time in agreement with the plea bargain, Judge Bazile suspended the sentence for 25 years provided that the Lovings would leave the state of Virginia immediately and not return together for the whole period. There was a catch, for when the 25 year period ends they would still face the prosecution of the court if they ever returned. He concluded his decision with this quote:
Source – According to “Long walk to Freedom” The following year, he was sent home alongside other students for participating in boycott against university policies. After finding out his family had an arranged marriage for him, he fled to Johannesburg and worked as a watchman then later a law clerk.
The National Socialist Party quickly turned heads in July 14th, 1933 through the Law Concerning the Formation of New Parties, by declaring itself the only political party that was "allowed to exist in the Third Reich" (156.HCCR). Soon thereafter, the political perception the Nazis were likely to enforce would transform the whole view of German culture, economy, race, and especially, the way German individuals emotionally and physically interacted with one another. One relationship in the German state that stood out in my mind was the Nazi’s view of marriage, its purpose, its use and its representation in the German state. The Nazi’s perceived marriage as a processing factory, where each partner had certain roles and purposes to fulfill. Through the creation of speeches, art and laws, the relationship that would stand to the occasion in representing the Third Reich was the relation between man and woman...marriage.
Through history, the period of the fifteenth century, a woman choosing her husband was extremely rare. The majority of marriages was planned by the head of the household, usually that father of the bride or groom. The course of the marriage is to gain power and social standards. Also provides the chance for the heir of the marriage would have in possession the power, the territory, and the social standard for the family for next future heirs to come. This benefit more for the men than the women, for men can own territories and be the head of the household, women cannot. Instead, a woman’s obligation is to fulfill their family’s jurisdiction in their future.
In the practice of marriage amongst the Nuer payment of a bridewealth and certain ceremonial rites are performed to initiate the marriage. The ceremonial rites will not take place until payment for the bride is made, exchange of cattle cannot by themselves bring about the marriage (Evans-Prichard, 1951). These two processes are important and close the establishment of the full union of marriage. In Nuer culture a marriage has many steps which are betrothal, wedding and the consummation. In Nuer culture no marriage is complete without with birth of a child. Although divorce is rare in Nuer society after the birth of the first child, divorce does occur. According to E E Evans-Prichard if divorce does occur and no children have been bore the cattle of the bride must be returned (Evans-Prichard, 1951).
He refers the marriage as him purchasing her. He thinks the marriage was just a transaction and that she was just bought by him.
The basic law of a contract is an agreement between two parties or more, to deliver a service or a product. And reach a consensus about the terms and conditions that is enforced by law and a contract can be only valid if it is lawful other than that there can’t be a contract. For a contract to exist the parties must have serious intentions, agreement, contractual capacity meaning a party must be able to carry a responsibility, lawful, possibility of performance and formalities. Any duress, false statements, undue influence or unconscionable dealings could make a contract unlawful and voidable.
Leach, E.R. ‘Polyandry, Inheritance and the Definition of Marriage’, Man, Vol. 55. December, 1955, pp. 182-186. Available from:
A contract is an agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to perform some actions in return of some consideration. These promises are legally binding. The contract can be for exchange of goods, services, property and so on. A contract can be oral as well as written and also it can be part oral and part written but it is useful to have written contract otherwise issues can be created in future. But both the written as well as oral contract is legally enforceable. Also if there is a breach of contract, there are certain remedies for that which are discussed later in the assignment. There are certain elements which need to be present in a contract. These elements are discussed in the detail in the assignment. (Clarke,
This paper explores and distinguishes different marriage practices across the globe. My goal is for the reader to be able to analyze each culture, and their customs, and be able to distinguish differences between the two. I have compiled a plethora of information from the provided resources. I met the limited requirements by using three of the sixteen provided for my use. I used the three sources to gain further knowledge about the subject at hand. Two of the three articles were used to compare different cultural marriage practices, whilst the third was used to differentiate the two, and show why I think diversity is vital in modern globalization.
The phrases of focus are “mutual commitment” and “exclusion of all others” which define the substance of a spousal relationship. Since the regulations relate to the issuance of a visa, the onus is on the minister and his delegates as well as the Migration Review Tribunal to review and determine if in fact an extramarital relationship is occurring between an applicant and sponsor claiming to be in a spousal relationship. In any case, the phrases mentioned above need to be satisfied before a visa is issued. But an impasse does arise in the instance that both spousal couple are aware of an extramarital relationship and the affected spouse has not problem or has accepted the situation. While an extramarital affair may be a source for separation and divorce, what happens if the affected spouse selects to remain in the marriage relationship and sponsor the other spouse for a permanent visa? What does the government do in this case? Yet, in most cases, the evidence of an extramarital affair typically leads to a divorce, which nullified the marital relationship all together. Therefore, there may be no requirement for the issuance of a temporary of permanent visa in such a