Question

Homer and Marge were married in 1980 and had two children, Bart and Lisa. In 2010 they were on the verge of seeking a divorce. Homer had been not living in the home for the past two years. According to Marge's testimony, Homer drank too much and was spending all of the money brought into the home on Buzz and crazy ideas. Homer requested to move back into the home and a meeting took place with all of the family members. Marge stated that he could move in under the following conditions: 1. He get alcohol counseling, 2. give Marge control of the financial accounts, 3. waiver any claim to Marge's pension. The agreement was made orally and the Bart and Lisa testified that Homer agreed to these conditions. Homer agreed the meeting took place, but stated only the first two conditions, not the 3rd happened. Homer returned and in 2013, things went back to the previous issues and the couple separated for the final time. Marge obtained a restraining order which called for his removal from the home and to not have contact with her. The couple went to court and the court awarded Marge 80% of the family assets and denied Homer to any portion of Marge's pension. Homer claimed that he never agreed to condition #3 and he is entitled to part of the pension. Is the oral contract above enforceable? Are Homer's three promises sufficient consideration to permit the court to uphold the decision? How should the court rule?Homer and Marge were married in 1980 and had two children, Bart and Lisa. In 2010 they were on the verge of seeking a divorce. Homer had been not living in the home for the past two years. According to Marge's testimony, Homer drank too much and was spending all of the money brought into the home on Buzz and crazy ideas. Homer requested to move back into the home and a meeting took place with all of the family members. Marge stated that he could move in under the following conditions: 1. He get alcohol counseling, 2. give Marge control of the financial accounts, 3. waiver any claim to Marge's pension. The agreement was made orally and the Bart and Lisa testified that Homer agreed to these conditions. Homer agreed the meeting took place, but stated only the first two conditions, not the 3rd happened. Homer returned and in 2013, things went back to the previous issues and the couple separated for the final time. Marge obtained a restraining order which called for his removal from the home and to not have contact with her. The couple went to court and the court awarded Marge 80% of the family assets and denied Homer to any portion of Marge's pension. Homer claimed that he never agreed to condition #3 and he is entitled to part of the pension. Is the oral contract above enforceable? Are Homer's three promises sufficient consideration to permit the court to uphold the decision? How should the court rule?

Answer 1

Homer made his promise orally than written has not at all valid in court of law .Homer has claim over marge pension . so homer can claim pension from marge.

Therefore all the three promises made by homer is invalid under law and he is free from any such promises.