Grounds for invalidating a contract
Courts are only empowered to enforce contracts, not to write them, for the parties.A contract, in order to be enforceable, must be a valid.The reason for this is the legal theory that prior to marriage, neither spouse has any legal rights, so a spouse is not giving anything up by signing a prenuptial agreement.As with prenuptial agreements, a court has the discretion to reject the terms of a post-nuptial agreements, for example if the court finds that its terms are insufficient to meet the financial needs of partners and children. jurisprudence followed the notion that contracts, such as a postnuptial agreements, could not be valid when executed between a husband and wife.
There is a definite written or oral offer that is accepted by the offeree (i.e., the person to whom the offer is made) in a manner that explicitly demonstrates consent to its terms.Postnuptial agreements only came to be widely accepted in the United States in the latter half of the 20th century. The inability of a husband and wife to contract with one another was due to the concept of marital unity: at the time of marriage, husband and wife become a single entity or person. courts began to reject marital unity as a legal theory, postnuptial agreements were rejected as being seen to encourage divorce.Since one may not enter into a contract with one's self, a postnuptial agreement would thus be invalid. It was only in the 1970s that postnuptial agreements started to gain broad acceptance in the United States.Like the contents of a prenuptial agreement, provisions vary widely but commonly includes provisions for division of property and spousal support in the event of divorce, death of one of the spouses, or breakup of marriage.However, courts subject them to more legal scrutiny than prenuptial agreements.