Overall, I think it is much better to issue mandatory legal advice and risk professional negligence actions against lawyers, as has happened in Australia, than to leave the parties unprotected, as they are in the United States. This is supported by a number of American commentators who have recommended that independent legal advice in the United States be a prerequisite, such as Bix and Brod.  In fact, Marston goes so far as to argue that mandatory legal advice „increases the potential for pregnancy demand, to be a positive and more relational experience.“  The woman obtained independent legal advice on the pre-marital agreement (as required by the Family Law) and her lawyer clearly advised her not to sign the pre-marital agreement. Despite the lawyer`s advice, she signed it. After the man and wife married, the husband provided the wife with a second arrangement that reiterated the terms of the pre-marital arrangement. Again, the woman sought independent legal assistance and again was advised not to sign it and again, the woman signed it. The High Court case concerned an overseas bride in the 1930s, whose 67-year-old partner, a wealthy real estate developer, said the marriage would not take place unless she signed a pre-marriage agreement that excluded her – and all future children – from her relationship of her will. Marital agreements have the potential to „consolidate“ the „feminization of poverty“ during divorce.  First, according to the doctrine of „unjustified influence,“ there is no presumption of „relationship of dependency, trust and trust“ between husbands and wives.
 Older case law suggests that such a presumption occurs between a fiancee and a bride, but more recently to Louth v Diprose Brennan J. „[t]he opinion is no longer of the opinion that an essential gift from a woman to her fiancé was obtained by inappropriate influence.“  Specific evidence may be provided that such a relationship does exist between the husband and wife.  Parkinson`s disease has suggested that an inappropriate influence could be extended to the actual situation of a marriage pact presented to a fiancé for the first time when the „marriage is imminent“ and they are told that they must sign it or annul the marriage. The short-term annulment of a marriage is considered a „serious embarrassment“, so there is very little time left to negotiate terms and considerable pressure. Parkinson`s disease argues that this could likely satisfy an „inappropriate real influence“ because of the „unacceptable pressure to sign the agreement.“  The agreement would therefore be inconclusive, while Parkinson argues that the same outcome would be less likely under U.S. law.  A good example is In re Yannalfo who confirmed an agreement presented the day before the wedding.  The Tribunal found that there must be „additional circumstances related to the date“ for the finding of an inappropriate constraint or influence, such as the absence of disclosure. B, for example.   Section 86A states that „a maintenance contract concluded after the entry of this section, which is not a financial agreement, has no effect and is in no way applicable.“