In most cultures, the idea of marrying for love is a new invention. Traditionally, marriages have been entered into as transactions to help families, communities and countries gain economic and status benefits. As a result, most of these marriages had written or oral agreements dealing with everything from the treatment of the bride and groom by each other`s families up to how much money would be exchanged and at what schedule. Your readers might be interested in knowing that something so new in appearance – the marriage contract [Long Island Sound, March 25] – is quite old. For example, the old Hebrew marriage contract, known as Ketubah, dates back at least 2,000 years. In France, the usual marriage comes from the dowry registered for the first time in the ninth century. The law, MGL c.209 §25, has been interpreted as authorizing, among other pre-marital contracts, those that set out the obligations of the bride and groom in the event that the death of a party terminates a marriage. In fact, such agreements came from sixteenth-century England and were rooted enough in popular culture to be mentioned in William Shakespeare`s plays.  This has alarmed high-income individuals and families with large estates. To prevent this wealth from being divided into half-marriage contracts, it has become common for wealthy couples.
Often, these agreements contained clauses allowing one spouse to obtain a higher share of the marital patrimony when the other spouse was unfaithful. These agreements can be entered into under the Indian Contract Act of 1872. Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act provides that agreements are considered contracts if they are entered into with the free consent of the parties.  However, section 23 of the same Act provides that a contract may be null and void if it is contrary to the law or contrary to public order.  In this case, the engaged couple entered into a marriage contract in which the bride-to-be released all the rights she would have « as a result of the marriage. » Id. at 545. The husband, a lawyer, was later tried as « mentally ill » and placed under guardianship. When Charlotte Rosenberg lost her case, she probably wasn`t comforted for helping to dramatically change the legal landscape of marriage contracts in Massachusetts. While we have followed the Wellington case in the current case, we believe that, to the extent that Wellington denies any obligation to disclose, we should abandon that precedent in favour of the more informed rules of other jurisdictions. Therefore, in future cases of agreements entered into after the date of publication of this notice, we may be free to opt out of the fact that, by definition, the parties have a confidential relationship and the burden of disclosure rests with both parties.  These agreements were almost always made by the parents of the bride and groom, not by the happy couple themselves. Modern couples may be terrified by the idea of their in-laws choosing their spouse and haggle at a price for their hand in marriage, but this was a common practice until the early twentieth century.
Pre-marriage mediation is an alternative way to create a marriage contract. In this process, a mediator allows for an open discussion between the couple on all kinds of marriage issues, such as expectations for work after the birth of children and saving and spending styles, as well as traditional pre-marital discussions about the distribution of property and assistance to spouses when the marriage ends. The engaged couple, with the help of the Mediator, makes all decisions about what would happen in the event of separation or divorce. They then design either a memo of agreement or a pre-marital agreement and have it verified by their respective lawyers.