自己生日要送萬幾蚊既物禮俾人
容易受傷的熊人
530 回覆
203 Like
815 Dislike
第 1 頁第 2 頁第 3 頁第 4 頁第 5 頁第 6 頁第 7 頁第 8 頁第 9 頁第 10 頁第 11 頁第 12 頁第 13 頁第 14 頁第 15 頁第 16 頁第 17 頁第 18 頁第 19 頁第 20 頁第 21 頁第 22 頁
最怕遇到呢類同事
你都痴撚線
結婚係雙向㗎dllm
結婚係雙向㗎dllm
你諗到咁多野去反駁我, 咁你自己一早應該有答案
但你偏偏出post 話睇唔開, 代表你連自己都説服唔到, 接受唔到個事實
你明顯知自己係工人, 但唔想認啫
但你偏偏出post 話睇唔開, 代表你連自己都説服唔到, 接受唔到個事實
你明顯知自己係工人, 但唔想認啫
我見你句句都講到咁老定, 好奇問下姐。
現實同理論既野
唔好理老唔老定先
講返現實
無論係主觀定客觀因素
樓豬又真係朝工人呢個方向行緊
如果廿幾歲 都重有時間可以改變既
一旦定咗型就
唔好理老唔老定先
講返現實
無論係主觀定客觀因素
樓豬又真係朝工人呢個方向行緊
如果廿幾歲 都重有時間可以改變既
一旦定咗型就
我男人黎其實 你真係cls
老婆搵6萬幾，老公2萬幾
但係供樓就6 比 4
仲要層樓係老婆名
將心比幾你老母咩
但係供樓就6 比 4
仲要層樓係老婆名
將心比幾你老母咩
臭鴨, 收皮啦
供樓只有一個人名我覺得好合理
無理由浪費一個人頭
預左買第二間免稅
無理由浪費一個人頭
預左買第二間免稅
去到150咁後先有呢個comment
就知香港個價值觀幾咁9
就知香港個價值觀幾咁9
條女已大怨氣 ，唔甘心，覺得自己值得好啲，佢個日係發洩。
睇到半睇唔落去。咁大個男人婚都結埋仲學人講志願學人砌木屋仔，唔講以為果個唔係你老婆係你老母
Jupas時同老母講我志願係教書，母親節砌返間屋仔俾老母咪算囉，你娶咩老婆啫？？
咁你生日，係你老母生你嘛，佢想要你送個袋超合理喎
Jupas時同老母講我志願係教書，母親節砌返間屋仔俾老母咪算囉，你娶咩老婆啫？？
咁你生日，係你老母生你嘛，佢想要你送個袋超合理喎
佢生日送張離婚申請書比佢
佢實畢生難忘
佢實畢生難忘
你冇同佢認真溝通。唔知你點識佢 但如果你地係同一個起跑線 一早就應該要講
遲啲想送有冇得送
有得送嗰陣時送下冇所謂啦
橫掂啲錢留返喺度 都係用嚟擺
有得送嗰陣時送下冇所謂啦
橫掂啲錢留返喺度 都係用嚟擺
珍惜啦 真係貪錢就唔會同樓主呢種人一齊
樓主可以收皮了
有錢vs窮人 完。
金錢價值觀唔對等 冇話邊個錯邊個啱
金錢價值觀唔對等 冇話邊個錯邊個啱
世界真細小
都結咗婚點解唔俾哂D錢叫老婆管理？佢要買咪係戶口度出，煩惱小好多
佢要出錢自然會就住買架啦
佢要出錢自然會就住買架啦
You sure 
B. Pre-marital agreements and public policy
Historically, pre-marital agreements were regarded as being contrary to public policy on the grounds that provision for a divorced wife and children of the family is a matter of public concern. In UK case Bennett v Bennett, the court said that “it is in the public interest that the wife and children of a divorced husband should not be left dependent on public assistance or on charity when he has the means to support them”.
For example, if a party had not given full and frank disclosure before the signing of the pre-marital agreement and the wife is left destitute under the agreement, the agreement may be contrary to public policy. Another example might be that since the marriage, the parties' financial situations may have drastically changed (for the better or worse), thus what was initially agreed under the pre-marital agreement might not be “fair” or reflective of the parties’ living standard during the marriage.
Later, the UK court in the Radmachner case stated that pre-marital agreements are not contrary to public policy. However, this view is just of persuasive value in Hong Kong. Furthermore, pre-marital agreements cannot restrict parties from applying to the court for orders for financial arrangements.
In 2011, the Hong Kong court briefly acknowledged the Radmacher case, and stated an observation of the modern trend of nuptial agreements being recognized. However, Radmacher is not binding in law in Hong Kong. Until the Courts in Hong Kong or the legislature fully accept the binding effect of nuptial agreements, nuptial agreements, other than separation agreements, will continue not to be binding in a court of law. Nevertheless, the UK decisions have provided Hong Kong courts with some guidance on the status of nuptial agreements when determining ancillary relief and asset division in matrimonial matters
Historically, pre-marital agreements were regarded as being contrary to public policy on the grounds that provision for a divorced wife and children of the family is a matter of public concern. In UK case Bennett v Bennett, the court said that “it is in the public interest that the wife and children of a divorced husband should not be left dependent on public assistance or on charity when he has the means to support them”.
For example, if a party had not given full and frank disclosure before the signing of the pre-marital agreement and the wife is left destitute under the agreement, the agreement may be contrary to public policy. Another example might be that since the marriage, the parties' financial situations may have drastically changed (for the better or worse), thus what was initially agreed under the pre-marital agreement might not be “fair” or reflective of the parties’ living standard during the marriage.
Later, the UK court in the Radmachner case stated that pre-marital agreements are not contrary to public policy. However, this view is just of persuasive value in Hong Kong. Furthermore, pre-marital agreements cannot restrict parties from applying to the court for orders for financial arrangements.
In 2011, the Hong Kong court briefly acknowledged the Radmacher case, and stated an observation of the modern trend of nuptial agreements being recognized. However, Radmacher is not binding in law in Hong Kong. Until the Courts in Hong Kong or the legislature fully accept the binding effect of nuptial agreements, nuptial agreements, other than separation agreements, will continue not to be binding in a court of law. Nevertheless, the UK decisions have provided Hong Kong courts with some guidance on the status of nuptial agreements when determining ancillary relief and asset division in matrimonial matters
假撚到
你老婆貪你夠廢啊？
你老婆貪你夠廢啊？
結婚後其實係共產了