Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:39:31.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PRIVATE AUTONOMY AND MARITAL PROPERTY AGREEMENTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2010

Anne Sanders
Anne Sanders
Affiliation:
M Jur (Oxon). Judicial assistant at the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)Karlsruhe, Germany.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

After the Court of Appeal decision in Radmacher v Granatino, the question whether English law should introduce enforceable pre-nuptial or marital property agreements came into focus again. Taking the decision as a starting point, the article argues in favour of introducing such agreements. Adopting a comparative approach, the article explains how such agreements are used in Germany and demonstrates that the idea of private autonomy, which has been regarded as the basis of pre-nuptial property agreements in Germany since the 19th century, can explain why couples should be allowed to make their own decisions with respect to the financial consequences of the breakdown of their relationship. Analysis of the different notions of contract in German and English law as well as comparing marriage with partnerships and other long-term contractual relationships illustrates not only the historical reasons why such agreements have not been allowed so far, but also helps to understand what safeguards the legislator and the judiciary could apply to ensure that parties do not abuse their freedom.

Type
Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 571 - 603
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hyman v Hyman [1929] AC 601; see also the discussion of the case law by Ward LJ in Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2007] EWCA Civ 969.

2 Charman v Charman [2007] EWCA Civ 503, 124 per Sir Mark Potter; Crossley v Crossley [2007] EWCA Civ 1491, 17 per LJ Thorpe.

3 Law Commission, Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown (Report 307, 2007) 103–117.

4 http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/marital_property.htm.

5 This article does not discuss civil partnerships. However, since marriage and civil partnership show so many similarities, the points raised in relation to marriage should also be valid for civil partnerships.

6 Radmacher v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649 para 83.

7 Such agreements could conceivably affect the most personal aspects of life (for example whether a spouse has to stop work to have children, visiting rights for friends and family members, the cleaning of the bath room, the children's education, and the couple's sex life) where courts should intervene with restraint (if at all). In the United States, where such clauses are often part of prenuptial agreements they are not enforceable (see AA Marston ‘Planning for Love: the Politics of Prenuptial Agreements’ (1997) 49 Stan L Rev 887, 899; SN Katz, Family Law in America (OUP, New York, 2003) 33–34. Nor are such clauses enforceable in Germany.

8 [2008] UKPC 64.

9 I Radmacher v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649 para 29 ii.

10 For an historic perspective on the regulation of the law of contract in the general part of the BGB and not the book on the law of obligations, see S Hofer, vor § 145, Vertrag, in M Schmoeckel, J Rückert and R Zimmermann (eds), Historisch-kritischer Kommentar zum BGB Vol I (Mohr-Siebeck, Tübingen, 2003) 818–824.

11 See eg C Wolff, Grundsätze des Natur-und Völkerrechts (1754) § 856, 857; this understanding is made clear in s 44 of the Austrian Civil Code of 1812; see also G Brudermüller, Einf v § 1353 BGB n 1 in Palandt BGB (68th edn, 2009); G Fischer, Die Problematik der Ehe als Vertrag und Sakrament in der Entwicklung des kirchlichen Eherechts (Lang, Frankfurt, 2003); A Duncker, Gleichheit und Ungleichheit in der Ehe (Böhlau, Köln, 2003) 207–294.

12 N Dethloff, Die einverständliche Scheidung (CH Beck, München, 1994) 10, 53–67.

13 B Windscheid, Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts (9th edn, Scientia, Frankfurt a M, 1896) § 490.

14 While agreements regarding marital property were and are very common in continental Europe, pre-marital agreements with respect to maintenance were and are much more problematic in many European countries, as for example in Belgium, Spain, Italy, and Switzerland. Particularly in France, such agreements are considered to contradict the ordre public. For a comparative overview of prenuptial agreements in different countries, see S Hofer, D Schwab and D Henrich (eds), From Status to Contract? Die Bedeutung des Vertrages im europäischen Familienrecht, (Gieseking, Bielefeld, 2005).

15 S Cretney, Family Law in the 20th Century (OUP, Oxford, 2003) 96–97.

16 In the Netherlands, the parties become co-owners even of the property they have obtained before the marriage.

17 Community of property is a matrimonial property regime the parties can agree upon in a marital property agreement. It is rarely used, however, because it is extremely complicated and requires the consent of each spouse for the transfer of most assets, which can make its application cumbersome.

18 Such forms of co-ownership differ from country to country. As the parties cannot usually transfer their ‘share’ to marital property without a divorce, usually such co-ownership might be comparable to a joint tenancy.

19 This is an approximate description. In Germany, only the property obtained during the marriage is divided, while in the Nordic countries, all property is divided. However, the judge has discretion to divide the property differently. See Scherpe, J ‘A Comparative View of Pre-nuptial Agreements’ [2007] International Family Law 18Google Scholar.

20 For a slightly outdated but nonetheless roughly accurate English introduction to German matrimonial property law see D Martiny in Zekoll and Reimann (eds), Introduction of German Law (2nd edn, Kluwer, The Hague, 2005) 251, 257–258.

21 ibid 258.

22 Inheritance tax plays an important part in such considerations. In some countries, Germany, for example, for property received on the dissolution of marriage by death, no inheritance tax is due.

23 See for a historical and comparative discussion of the relationship between marriage contracts and testaments J Goody, ‘Inheritance, property and women’ In J Goody, J Thirsk and E.P. Thompson (eds) Family and Inheritance, Rural Society in Western Europe (CUP, Cambridge, 1976) 10, 15–36.

24 A recent reform of maintenance law has given more discretion to judges in 2008.

25 The Versorgungsausgleich was introduced only in 1977 to allow divorced housewives pension rights for their old age.

26 Such agreements do not bind the courts, but are taken into account.

27 E Cooke, ‘The Future for Ancillary Relief’ In G Douglas and N Lowe (eds), The Continuing Evolution of Family Law, (Jordan, Bristol, 2009) 203–220. This may not always be the case however; for example, the author has knowledge of one case where a notary did not advise properly because he did not want to lose the husband as a client.

28 S Ferrari, ‘Die Bedeutung der Privatautonomie im österreichischen Familienrecht’ in Hofer, Schwab and Henrich (n 14) 97, 103.

29 J Scherpe ‘A Comparative View of Pre-nuptial Agreements’ March IFL [2007] 18; J Scherpe ‘Privatautonomie im Familienrecht der nordischen Länder’ in Hofer, Schwab and Henrich (n 14) 209, 214–215.

30 In practice, however, the valuation of marital property can be extremely expensive and difficult.

31 BGH [2005] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2386; BGH [2007] DNotZ 128.

32 BGH [2005] Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 691; for examination of the motives for concluding marital property agreements: E Cooke, ‘The Future for Ancillary Relief’ In G Douglas and N Lowe (eds), The Continuing Evolution of Family Law (Jordan, Bristol, 2009) 203–220.

33 [2007] EWCA Civ 1491.

34 [2008] UKPC 64.

35 Langenfeld, G, ‘Ehevertragsgestaltung und Ehetypen’ [1987] Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 9Google Scholar, 12.

36 BGH [2008] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1076; G Langenfeld, Muenchener Vertragshandbuch (CH Beck, München, 1998) 576.

37 See D Heckelmann, Abfindungsklauseln in Gesellschaftsverträgen (CH Beck, München, 1973) 114.

38 M v M (Prenuptial Agreement) [2002] 1 FLR 654; K v K (Ancillary Relief; Prenuptial Agreement) [2003] 1 FLR 120; Ella v Ella [2007] EWCA Civ 99, [2007] 2 FLR 35.

39 Such cases have been heard at English courts: S v S (Divorce: Staying Proceedings) [1997] 2 FLR 100; F v F [1995] 2 FLR 45; K v K (Ancillary Relief: Prenuptial Agreement [2003] 1 FLR 120.

40 BGH [2007] Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 450.

41 BGH [2006] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2331.

42 BGH [2007] DNotZ 128.

43 Aziz v Aziz 488 NY S 2d 123 (NY S Ct 1985), Dajani v Dajani 204 Cal App 3d 1387 (1988); Shaban v Shaban, 88 Cal App 4d 398 (2001); Habibi-Fahnrich v Fahnrich WL 507388 (NY S Ct July 10, 1995), Akileh v Elchahal, 666 So Ed 246, 247 (F D Ct App 1996), Odatalla v Odatalla 810 A.2d 93, 98 (NJ S Ct 2002), Darvarmanesh v Gharacholou 2005 WL 1684050 (Tenn Ct App March 2, 2005), Abdallah v Sarsour WL 1134034 (Vir C Ct March 20, 2006).

44 [2004] EWHC 471 (Fam), [2004] 1 FLR 977.

45 In ‘everyday cases’, these decisions seem to have brought less uncertainty: Hitchings, E, ‘Everyday Cases in the Post-White era’ [2008] Family Law 873Google Scholar.

46 Marston (n 7) 887, 891; Katz (n 7) 33–34.

47 Radmacher v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649 para 27.

48 H Collins, The Law of Contract (4th edn, CUP, Cambridge, 2003) 10.

49 Radmacher v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649 para 72.

50 S Cretney, Principles of Family Law (7th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2003), A-001; S Cretney, ‘The Family and the Law— Status or Contract?’ (2003) 15Child and Family Law Quarterly, 403–404; a famous 19th century view of marriage was given by Appleton CJ in Adams v Palmer (1863) 51 Maine 480, 483.

51 Commentaries of the Laws of England Vol 1, (4th edn, 1770) 442.

52 S Cretney, Family Law in the 20th Century (OUP, Oxford, 2003) 92.

53 Balfour v Balfour 2 KB [1919] 571; D Ibbetson, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (OUP, Oxford, 1999), 232–233; PS Atiyah, An Introduction to the Law of Contract (5th edn, Lawbook Co, Australia, 1995) 156.

54 2009 Jonathan Brock Lecture, sponsored by the London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association (LCLCBA).

55 [2007] UKHL 17 para 69.

56 ibid para 83.

57 In Germany, for example, only in 1938 was § 80 EheG introduced which stated that agreements with respect to maintenance did not contradicting public policy just because they facilitate divorces. Before the introduction of no-fault divorce in 1977, however, such an agreement was void when the parties had lied in court to obtain a divorce, for example where the husband had agreed to admit adultery he had not committed.

58 Radmacher v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649 para 65 per Rix LJ referring to MacLeod v MacLeod MacLeod v MacLeod [2008] UKPC 64 para 36 per Baroness Hale.

59 Radmacher v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649 para 73.

60 Such a case was decided in Germany, where a husband asked for a matrimonial property agreement to convince him not to divorce his wife: BGH [1997] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 192.

61 This was indeed the argument used for years by the German Bundesgerichtshof to enforce such agreements.

62 Marital property agreements with problematic content will be discussed in the section VII below.

63 Hyman v Hyman [1929] AC 601, 629.

64 MacLeod v MacLeod [2008] UKPC 64 para 33.

65 Radmacher v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649 para 83.

66 ibid para 27.

67 See for the rise of the will theory in England: D Ibbetson, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (OUP, Oxford, 1999) ch 12.

68 See W Flume, Das Rechtsgeschäft (Springer, Berlin, 1979) § 1 1–2, 6, 8.

69 L Fastrich, Richterliche Inhaltskontrolle im Privatrecht (CH Beck, München, 1992) 46 with reference to the Third Reich, B Rüthers, Unbegrenzte Auslegung (1968) 360–381.

70 Especially important were Kant's works, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, Metaphysik der Sitten, and Kritik der reinen Vernunft BXVII; see also FC Savigny, System des heutigen römischen Rechts, I, 53–54, with further references: F Wieacker, Privatrechtsgeschichte der Neuzeit (2nd edn, Mohr-Siebeck, Tübingen, 1967) 351–353.

71 I Kant, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, (Reprint Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 2004) 51 ‘autonomy is the basis of human dignity’. In Metaphysik der Sitten (Reclam, Leipzig, 1998) § 19, Kant states that the ability to conclude contracts is a natural consequence of human autonomy alone and cannot be explained otherwise (for example by the search for profits and happiness).

72 See F Wieacker, Privatrechtsgeschichte der Neuzeit (2nd edn, Mohr-Siebeck, Tübingen, 1967) 351–353; in family law, however, Savigny expressed rather conservative opinions, see FC v Savigny, ‘Darstellung der in den Preuß. Gesetzen über die Ehescheidung unternommenen Reform 1844’ (reprint in [1969] Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 1); D Schwab, ‘Zur Geschichte des verfassungsrechtlichen Schutzes von Ehe und Familie’ in HF Gaul (ed) Festschrift für FW Bosch (Gieseking, Bielefeld, 1995) 893, 900.

73 B Dauner-Lieb, in J Hopt and D Tzouganatos (eds), Europäisierung des Handels- und Wirtschaftsrechts, (Mohr-Siebeck Tübingen, 2006) 280–290; U Reifner, Alternatives Wirtschaftsrecht am Beispiel der Verbraucherverschuldung, (Luchterhand, Neuwied, 1979) 32 talks about ‘abstract freedom’. However, this premise was seen in the context of a division of labour with public law, which by granting social benefits was believed to enable people with less economic means to exercise their freedom in practise: see Rückert, J, ‘Das Bürgerliche Gesetzbuch—ein Gesetzbuch ohne Chance?’ [2003] JZ 749Google Scholar, 755.

74 HB Schäfer and C Ott, Lehrbuch der ökonomischen Analyse des Zivilrechts ( Mohr-Siebeck, Tübingen, 2005) 393–400.

75 F Rittner, ‘Über das Verhältnis von Vertrag und Wettbewerb’ 188 AcP (1988) 101, 128; D Medicus, Allgemeiner Teil des BGB (6th edn, Müller, Heidelberg, 1994) n 172–176; B Dauner-Lieb, Verbraucherschutz durch Ausbildung eines Sonderprivatrechts für Verbraucher (Duncker & Humblodt, Berlin, 1983) 51–58.

76 G Planck, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch Vol 4, (Guttentag, Berlin 1901) 192; K Gerber, System des deutschen Privatrechts (14th edn, Fischer, Jena, 1882) § 223; B Windscheid, Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts (Scientia, Frankfurt a M, 1896) § 490; B Mugdan (ed), Die gesammten Materialien zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch für das Deutsche Reich, (Vol IV, Deckers, Berlin, 1899) 83, 563; B Dauner-Lieb and A Sanders,‘Eheleitbilder, Ehemotive und Eheverträge im Spigel der Literatur’ in Festschrift für I Groß (DAV, Bonn, 2004) 39, 45–50.

77 See S Hofer, ‘Privatautonomie as Prinzip für Vereinabrungen zwischen Ehegatten’ in Hofer, Schwab and Henrich (n 14) 1, 3–7.

78 Motive zum Enwurfe eines Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch für das Deutsche Reich Vol IV Guttentag, Berlin, 1888) 142, translation by the author.

79 ibid 134.

80 See HF Gaul in Soergel Kommentar Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, (10th edn, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1971) § 1408 n 5.

81 ‘Without freedom of contract, the unified matrimonial property law would be considered a heavy burden’ Motive (n 79) 142.

82 [2007] EWCA Civ 503 at [124].

83 See for discussion of the so called ‘Regionalsystem’ Motive zum Enwurfe eines Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch für das Deutsche Reich Vol IV (1888) 134–135.

84 S Hofer, ‘Privatautonomie as Prinzip für Vereinabrungen zwischen Ehegatten’ in Hofer, Schwab and Henrich (n 14) 1, 7–8.

85 Cretney (n 15) 96–98.

86 Strong v Dubin 48 A.D.3d 232, 851 NYS 2d 428, 2008 NY Slip Op. 01021 SC, Appellate Division, First Department, New York at [1][2], citing Matter of Greiff, 92 NY 2d 341, 344, 680 NYS 2d 894, 703 N E2d 752 [1998]).

87 White v White [2001] 1 AC 596, 605 per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead.

88 White v White [2001] 1 AC 596, 605–606 per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Miller v Miller and McFarlane v;McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24 [16], [2006] 2 AC 618, 632–633 per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, and [141–143] per Baroness Hale of Richmond.

89 The notion of ‘company law’ used in this context is a broad one, embracing different kinds of association including companies and partnerships.

90 Ebel, F, ‘Die Ehe als juristische Person’ [1971] Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 637Google Scholar.

91 S Hofer ‘Das Gesellschaftsrechtliche an der Ehe’ in Hofer et al, FS für Dieter Schwab (CH Beck, München, 2005) 79, 95.

92 RA Posner, Economic Analysis of Law (Aspen, New York 2002) 145–148.

93 A Treatise on Family (HUP, Boston, 1991; see also Becker, GS, ‘A Theory of Marriage Part I’ (1973) 81 Journal of Political Economy 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 813, 815–820.

94 See also M Brinig (ed) Economics of Family Law (Elgar, Cheltenham, 2007).

95 ‘There must be some actions leading to a breakdown in the relationship which dissolves the trust and confidence which is the foundation of partnership’ Morse summarized G Morse, Partnership Law (6th edn, OUP, Oxford, 2006) 7.15. See O'Neill v Phillips [1999] 1 WLR 1092, 1104 per Lord Hoffmann.

96 C Barton, ‘Domestic Partnership Contracts: Sliced Bread or a Slice of the Bread? [2008] Fam Law 900.

97 Miller v Miller and McFarlane v;McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24 at [16], [2006] 2 AC 618, 632–633 per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, referring to R v R [1992] 1 AC 599, 617.

98 [2001] 1 AC 596, 599.

99 D Ibbetson, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (OUP, Oxford, 1999), 251–261; PS Atiyah, ‘Contracts, Promises and the Law of Obligations’ in: Essays on Contract (Oxford: OUP 1986) 10–11; H Collins, The Law of Contract, (CUP, Cambridge, 2003) 25.

100 Or if they happen to be, are not acting in their capacity as such.

101 Radmacher v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649 para 71 per Rix LJ (emphasis added).

102 Only a 2001 decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), Germany's highest court, has requested the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) to give regard to the protection of weaker parties.

103 BGH [2004] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 940, 935.

104 The Bundesgerichtshof has also decided that § 138 (1) BGB can be applied in favour of the ‘paying party’ if it was clear at the moment of the agreement's conclusion that he or she would never be able to afford to pay the promised sums BGH [2009] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 842.

105 ibid 934; the doctrinal character and application of § 242 BGB in this area is still a matter of academic debate. See A Sanders, Statischer Vertrag und dynamische Vertragsbeziehung (Gieseking, Bielefeld, 2008) 166–180, 289–357.

106 In the United States, the parties must provide full information with respect to their financial situation. In Germany, the parties have no such duties, however.

107 Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA) of 1983, 9B ULA 369 (1983).

108 Radmacher v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649 para 65 per Rix LJ referring to MacLeod v MacLeod MacLeod v MacLeod [2008] UKPC 64 para 36 per Baroness Hale.

109 Miller v Miller and McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24 para 9 per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead.

110 ibid [11–16] per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and para 138–144 per Baroness Hale.

111 Another question would be how the spouse's needs should be defined. In F v F [1995] 2 FLR 45, the wife of a very wealthy man agreed to live on the salary of a German judge. Thorpe LJ disapproved of this agreement. F v F was disapproved of in Wicks v Wicks [1998] 3 WLR 277 in relation to interim relief but this did not concern the issue of a marital property agreement.

112 Such disadvantages mean that because of the organization of the marriage, one spouse suffered disadvantages in his or her income and earning power. A typical example would be a woman with a good education who stayed at home with the children and is not able to find an adequate job 20 years later.

113 BGH [2005] Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 691; BGH [2008] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 1083.

114 Miller v Miller and McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24 para 11–15 per Lord Nicholls and para 138–140 per Baroness Hale.

115 Radmacher v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649 para 73 per Rix LJ, emphasis added.

116 See Sharp, C, ‘Pre-nuptial Agreements: A Rethink Required’ [2008] Family Law 741Google Scholar, 749.

117 BGH [2005] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1449.

118 See Jhering, R, Der Zweck im Recht Vol 1 (1884) 76Google Scholar: ‘If the binding effect of the contract is explained by giving a purpose, this purpose is nothing more, than to protect the original contract against the negative influence of a subsequent change of mind of one party, or: legal inconsiderableness of a change of interests. … The promise releases the contract from the bonds of the present.’

119 Hoffmann LJ (as he then was) in Walton v Walton (1994 unreported) paras 21–22 cited by Lord Walker in Thorner v Majors [2009] UKHL 18 para 57.

120 See for a short introduction: LJ Alston ‘New Institutional Economics’ in SN Durlauf and LE Blume (eds) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd edn, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, 2008).

121 With further references, MA Eisenberg ‘The Theory of Contracts’ in P Benson (ed) The Theory of Contract Law (CUP, Cambridge, 2001) 206, 253; R Richter and E Furubotn, Neue Institutionenökonomik (Mohr-Siebeck, Tübingen, 2003) 192–193, 552–553; Fleischer, H, ‘Grundfragen der ökonomischen Theorie im Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrecht’ [2001] ZGR 1Google Scholar, 6–7.

122 Eisenberg, MA, ‘The Limits of Cognition and the Limits of Contract’ [1995] Stan L Rev 47 211Google Scholar.

123 ibid 224–225.

124 L Baker and R Emery, ‘When Every Relationship is Above Average: Perceptions and Expectations of Divorce at the Time of Marriage’ (1993) Law & Human Behaviour 17 439.

125 Thorner v Majors [2009] UKHL 18 para 97 per Lord Neuberger.

126 Sanders (n 106).

127 Thorner v Majors [2009] UKHL 18 para 97 per Lord Neuberger.

128 See Total Gas Marketing Ltd v Arco British Ltd and Others, [1998] 2 Lloyd′s Rep 209, 218 per Lord Steyn: ‘(This is) a contract of a type sometimes called a relational contract. But there are no special rules of interpretation applicable to such contracts’; With further references, D Campbell ‘Ian Macneil and the Relational Theory of Contract’ in D Campbell (ed), The Relational Theory of Contract (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2001) 1, 28–46; J Feinmann, ‘The Reception of Ian Macneil's Work on Contract in the USA’ in D Campbell (ed), The Relational Theory of Contract (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2001) 59.

129 M Eisenberg, ‘Relational Contract’ in J Beatson and D Friedmann (eds), Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law (OUP, Oxford, 1995) 291.

130 Macneil first used a dichotomy of ‘discrete’ (short term exchanges like the sale of goods) and ‘relational contracts’, which he later abandoned, arguing that all contractual relationships have certain relational aspects, see I Macneil, in Campbell (ed), The Relational Theory of Contract (Sweet & Maxwell London, 2001) 378; Here, only Macneil's observations concerning typical ‘relational contracts’ will be taken into consideration.

131 Feinmann, J ‘Relational Contract Theory in Context’ 94 (2000) Northwestern Univ L Rev, 737, 741, 746–7Google Scholar; E Kingdom, ‘Cohabitation Contracts and the Democratisation of Personal Relations’ 8 (2000) Feminist Legal Studies, 5, 29, J Wightman, ‘Intimate Relationship, Relational Theory and the Reach of Contract’ 9 (2000) Feminist Legal Studies 93, 102; E Scott and R Scott, ‘Marriage as Relational Contract’ 84 (1998) Virginia Law Review, 1225.

132 I Macneil, in D Campbell (ed), The Relational Theory of Contract (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2001) 186.

133 See for example BGH [2008] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1080, 1083; [2007] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2848, 2850–2851.

134 J Cartwright, Contract Law (Hart, Oxford, 2007) 58–59.

135 Again, the question would be how the spouse's needs should be defined.

136 [1929] AC 601, 608, 628, 629.

137 Radmacher v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649 para 73 per Rix LJ, emphasis added.

138 Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 para 43 per Baroness Hale of Richmond, para 100 per Lord Neuberger.

139 ibid para 61 per Baroness Hale of Richmond.

140 For a comparative view on English family constructive trusts and the German marriage-partnership see: A Sanders ‘Vermögensausgleich bei Solidargemeinschaften Ehegatteninnengesellschaften, trusts und Bereicherungsrecht in Deutschland und England’ forthcoming in ZEuP (Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht).