The point went over your head. I will make it again.
You enter into an agreement to purchase components from someone. It is understood that you will use those components to produce goods that you will sell to a consumer.
If the person just decides to stop providing you with the components needed to produce your goods half way into the contract, what do you think the solution would be? Claiming damages on the amount paid, or claiming damages that includes loss of future earnings?
It is difficult to look at marriage in this matter because people get emotional. They start looking at in terms of what they think the other person deserves.
The law is not interested in that shyt. It is interested in agreement and the expectations. When people get.. just thought of a brilliant idea... married, they do so on the understanding that death will part them. With that understanding comes an expectation that their vows will come with surety of a certain lifestyle.
Now on to my great idea. It would be good if marriages were handled like leases with the option to extend once the term has expired. That would remove certain presumptions. Of course, the simplest solution is specifying what should happen when the contract is terminated.
It would amaze me that people don't understand the implications of breaking a complex and largely unwritten contract, but as I said people get emotional.
I know this is an old post, but I really like how you likened marriage to a business contract. These are terms I can understand.
That said, here is something which is still unclear to me:
So, for example, say the husband is wealthy and enters into a marriage contract with a woman who is not.
If I understand your example correctly, the understanding between the two is the husband is "purchasing" components from his wife. Let's say he is purchasing her "wifely support" in terms of her being a loving partner, keeping her appearance up, rearing the children, maintaining the home, etc. By doing all of these things, the wife is provided a direct value to the husband, which enables him to be a more effective producer in whatever he makes to continue building his wealth. So, in short, the man is pouring financial resources into the woman, and, in turn, she is returning him with support which enables him to be a greater wealth-building machine.
Thus, if he initiates divorce, the argument for "damages" the wife can seek is that she has been cut off from the access she needs to provide all the things I listed under wifely support. The question would be, though, if she is no longer a direct value to the husband, why would she still be entitled to those resources? He used the "components" he "purchased" from her to make it easier for
him to build wealth; she never
directly did though. Perhaps he determined the quality of what she was producing was in decline or he just had no further use of it. The loss for "future earnings", then, would be one
he incurs, not her, as what she was producing was exclusively for one market (her husband).
The only thing I can see which overrides
all of this is that the contract is "til death do us part" (if they used the traditional vows during their ceremony); by saying this at a ceremony, in front of witnesses, said husband and wife orally binding themselves to a lifelong business agreement no matter what happens in the marriage. In this case, it shows this entire business deal is being interpreted thru this lens and, as such, maybe there is no way for the husband to dissolve it without having to pay anything.
Did I interpret your explanation correctly?
