National - FFS!

[Bjauck]

That's very judgemental (and totally subjective)

objectively - a marriage has legal force and implications between the two people involved. When a third party gets involved in areas covered by this legal institution, they are crossing the boundaries. It has implications and will usually end in tears for one or more people in the triangle.

[Joshuatree]

National do need to answer for the coverup.

"Goodfellow is hardly being forthcoming about his role, saying only that "any issues that we were aware of that were raised, were dealt with at the time" - a statement that hardly seems adequate."
Answers for Ross 'cover-up'

[jonu]

[FONT="]National do need to answer for the coverup.

"Goodfellow is hardly being forthcoming about his role, saying only that "any issues that we were aware of that were raised, were dealt with at the time" - a statement that hardly seems adequate."
[/FONT] Answers for Ross 'cover-up'

Goodfellow is between a rock and a hard place. The complainants wouldn't have consented to being plastered over the media outlets.

[minimoke]

objectively - a marriage has legal force and implications between the two people involved. When a third party gets involved in areas covered by this legal institution, they are crossing the boundaries. It has implications and will usually end in tears for one or more people in the triangle.

I think you are confusing marriage with a contract.

[fungus pudding]

I think you are confusing marriage with a contract.

That's exactly what it is, although most of the terms can be decided beforehand between the parties. The exception being a prenuptial involving assets which require independent legal advice to each party.

[minimoke]

That's exactly what it is, although most of the terms can be decided beforehand between the parties. The exception being a prenuptial involving assets which require independent legal advice to each party.

Actually, its not. Its a union between two people upon which certain rights then fall. (if you doubt me check out the Marriage Act. The word "contract" is not mentioned once).

[artemis]

Actually, its not. Its a union between two people upon which certain rights then fall. (if you doubt me check out the Marriage Act. The word "contract" is not mentioned once).

There used to be breach of promise of marriage, which was legally a breach of contract.

As far as married or not, people do what they do and it is no concern to anybody except those impacted. Nothing new there.

[Marilyn Munroe]

I cant figure out if the recent donations scandal means the New Zealand National Party are fellow travelers with the Chinese Communist Party and will kow tow to them or are they rice Christians just after the money.

Boop boop de do
Marilyn

[fungus pudding]

Actually, its not. Its a union between two people upon which certain rights then fall. (if you doubt me check out the Marriage Act. The word "contract" is not mentioned once).

Actually it is. Any agreement, written or oral, can form a contract which is legally enforceable, provided it meets certain conditions. If you don't believe me, try marrying a new spouse before divorcing the old one.

[minimoke]

Actually it is. Any agreement, written or oral, can form a contract which is legally enforceable, provided it meets certain conditions. If you don't believe me, try marrying a new spouse before divorcing the old one.

The tort of breach of promise is different from contractual breach.. Divorce isn't the cancellation of a contract. Its the formal termination of a registered union (marriage or Civil Union) followed by a registration change. For those in a non- registered marriage (ie those "living in sin" but where relationship property laws apply) they can very easily "divorce" and "marry" again. The "mariage" is the easy bit - arguing over the property is the hard bit.

Anyhow - gettign off topic. Maybe JLR and his wife had an "agreement" that he could get under someone elses bed sheets