Public Agreement to Get Married (Engagement) and its Property and Personal Non–Property Consequences
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
This article presents a new institution, which an engagement to get married (betrothal). Taking into consideration particularly laconic regulation of engagement we draw attention to analysis of the 3.8 article of the third Civil Code book. Besides we have analyzed legal regulations of the Civil Code of German Empire, which was valid in 1924–1939 in Klaipėda region and which regulations of engagement are adopted in the present Civil Code. We also give some propositions to the third Civil Code Commentary. Nowadays institution of the engagement is legalized in some other countries (i. e. Italy, Latvia) too.
During the analysis of the Civil Code norms, which provide the engagement to get married we give several suggestions for conception of agreement to get married (engagement). In our opinion, agreement to get married (engagement) is an intention between male and female in some time and somewhere to get married and to create a family, but this intention is non–obligated and can’t be brought by coercion. At the same time the procedure of dividing expenditures of marriage contracting and exchanging presents, may be a reason of property and personal non–property consequences, provided in articles 3.9–3.11 of the Civil Code.
Some authors treat the engagement as a kind of a preliminary contract, which can be expressed in oral or in written or in notarial form. But in our opinion, engagement is by mistake equated with marriage contract, which is an agreement between spouses, provides their property rights and duties during marriage, in divorce or separation case.
Analyzing the 3.8 article of the Civil Code the author draws attention to the public agreement to get married, which is treated only as a set form of application to get married given to Registry of Civil Status. So in the conclusions the author emphasizes that in the Commentary of the third Civil Code book the public betrothal is also considered by mistake as the public declaration about provided church marriage.
Although the number of marriages is growing (e.g. in 2001 – 3197, 2002 – 3439), but there are no disputes because of promise breach to get married or notarial practice of engagement contract. Taking into consideration recent economical and social conditions and alterating changes in personal relations among young people there is a suggestion to refuse engagement legislation in the Civil Code. Besides it isn’t so popular or legalized in foreign countries (e.g. France, Russia).
During the analysis of the Civil Code norms, which provide the engagement to get married we give several suggestions for conception of agreement to get married (engagement). In our opinion, agreement to get married (engagement) is an intention between male and female in some time and somewhere to get married and to create a family, but this intention is non–obligated and can’t be brought by coercion. At the same time the procedure of dividing expenditures of marriage contracting and exchanging presents, may be a reason of property and personal non–property consequences, provided in articles 3.9–3.11 of the Civil Code.
Some authors treat the engagement as a kind of a preliminary contract, which can be expressed in oral or in written or in notarial form. But in our opinion, engagement is by mistake equated with marriage contract, which is an agreement between spouses, provides their property rights and duties during marriage, in divorce or separation case.
Analyzing the 3.8 article of the Civil Code the author draws attention to the public agreement to get married, which is treated only as a set form of application to get married given to Registry of Civil Status. So in the conclusions the author emphasizes that in the Commentary of the third Civil Code book the public betrothal is also considered by mistake as the public declaration about provided church marriage.
Although the number of marriages is growing (e.g. in 2001 – 3197, 2002 – 3439), but there are no disputes because of promise breach to get married or notarial practice of engagement contract. Taking into consideration recent economical and social conditions and alterating changes in personal relations among young people there is a suggestion to refuse engagement legislation in the Civil Code. Besides it isn’t so popular or legalized in foreign countries (e.g. France, Russia).
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
