UrbanistaCH_Button

The Blog


Can A Financial Agreement Be Set Aside

Neville FM discovered that the elements of estoppel described by Dixon J in Grundt were sufficiently established. It would be unfair and unfair for the husband to evade his responsibilities under the agreement. Neville FM ordered the agreement to be corrected by replacing s 90B with s 90B, wherever it appeared, declared the agreement valid and enforceable, and prevented the husband from continuing his proceedings s 79. It is clear from the Law that the deliberation of a financial agreement under Section 90B and the impact of such an agreement on the rights of a party including a marriage differs from the effect of a financial agreement under Section 90C on the rights of a conjugal party. However, as soon as it is a valid, enforceable and effective form of legal contract (i.e.: the law provides for a number of requirements that are not „contractual“, but specify whether or not section 71A of the act is invoked, in accordance with the principles of contract and fairness. If the Parliament had envisaged that s 90KA would play a role in this (separate) investigation, s 90KA would have referred to the question of the „commitment“ of an agreement. We consider it particularly relevant that this agreement, which the parties entered into with the intention of taking care of their property and financial resources during their marriage, and, if it broke, does not reflect the provisions of the section (see 79) which it attempted to circumvent. Interestingly, a BFA does not necessarily stop working after a party`s death. The BFA continues to work on the succession of the defunct party. The relevant provision of the Act is s 90H (entitled „Lethal effect of the part of a financial agreement“), which states that, first, the requirements of s 90G must be taken into account against a decisive consideration. In the absence of fraud, scruples or other incriminating factors, the essence of the regime established by Part VIIIA of the Law is that parties who are independently advised and receive adequate advice should be completely free to engage in a totally unfair and unjust agreement (Article 79 conditions) that governs their future rights and constitutes an obstacle to future ownership (and/or maintenance) procedures.

In short, if the relevant conditions are met and there are no appeasement factors, the parties are completely free to make a „bad deal“. There is a mistake when one or both parties are accused of a misunderstanding about something that forms the basis of their agreement. In equity, a party is sobered up for an error if „it is imitated for a person to enjoy the legal advantage he has obtained“ (Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422, at p. 431). Since contracts are maintained to the extent possible, it is more difficult, under the common law, to make contracts questionable for error than for equity (Solle v Butcher (1950) 1 KB 671, at p. 691; Taylor vs. Johnson). The authority is that the 87 agreements will not be broken by reconciliation (Borzak & Borzak (1979) FLC 90-688; Banhidy & Banhidy (1983) FLC 91-302).

. . .