Catherine and Peter didn’t cheat to get their prenuptial agreement. Catherine would need to have done her due diligence in order to discover how much Peter really had. Catherine also knew his wealth through their four-years of cohabitation. Peter was not guilty of fraud in failing to reveal his true salary as part of the contract.
Catherine didn’t sign the prenuptial contract under pressure as she asserts; therefore, Peter was not forced to get it. After four years of living together, Catherine became pregnant. Although the prenuptial agreement wasn’t drawn after she became pregnant, it was only after they had planned to marry. Concerns that Catherine wouldn’t have married if she hadn’t signed the prenuptial agreement are therefore unfounded. Alexander v. Alexander also stated that an insistence by a spouse to sign a prenuptial arrangement does not constitute sufficient compulsion to invalidate a legally valid contract (Alexander V. Alexander 2010, 2010). She must also have suffered mental or physical damage in order to consent to duress. Coercion did not win her consent.
Since both of the partners must have revealed their wealth, the agreement could not have been reached by concealing important facts. There is also no hidden connection between Catherine and her husband, which would have prevented her from doing her due diligence. Because of her knowledge of her husband’s wealth, and the need to use reasonable care, the contract cannot be void on the ground of nondisclosure.
The prenuptial agreement between Catherine and Peter is legal, despite their differing financial situations. Adams v. Adams states that unconscionable contracts often encourage immorality, and lead one side to profit from the other (Adams, v. Adams 2004). Catherine was not misrepresented or deceived, and the arrangement between Peter and Catherine is legal.