#2) In Graham, (Text, p. 184), the court refused to enforce a contract entered into between a husband and a wife. On what basis did the court rest its decision?
In the Graham case, the court rest its decision on public policy. The court states that the law prohibits married persons from altering by private agreements the personal relatinships and obligations assumed upon marriage, is based on sound foundations of public policy. The court goes on to say that “ the Law is well settled that a private agreement between persons married or about to be married which attemps to change the essential obligations of the marriage contract as defined by the law is contrary to public policy and unenforceable.” Graham v. Graham, 33 F.Supp.936 (E.D. Mich. 1940).…show more content… Mrs. Graham’s premarital agreement with her husband went against public policy in three ways, it allowed a women to form a contract, (which was unheard of at that time), it allowed a woman to make the decision of where the family would live, and it made the woman the bread winner of the family. This agreement striped the husband of his legal duties to provide for his wife, thereby changing the essential contract of a triditional marriage agreement.
Do you think that the court should have enforced the agreement? Why, or why not?
No, I do not think the court should have enforced the agreement. By doing so would open up other doors, creating a slippery slope. What method would the court use to determin if the amount agreed to is an adequate mount for each person to recieve. What else could the parties bargin for in their marriage contract?
#3) . Do you think that premarital agreements are an effective and desirable way for couples to resolve, in advance, the foreseeable controversies which could arise in the event of