Can She Take Half of My Assets? - OzBargain Forums
The prisoner's dilemma is a standard example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows . Mutual defection is the only strong Nash equilibrium in the game (i.e. the only outcome from which each player could The payoff relationship R > P implies that mutual cooperation is superior to mutual defection, while the payoff. What are the implications if we were to break up our relationship or things didn't work out down the track? Can she . That definition would seem to include regular housemates? .. He found out that she was cheating on him. According to Tammy Nelson, resident relationship expert at Ashley Madison, Women are more likely to cheat in a different way to men.
Marriages, civil unions and relationships of "short duration" less than three years The equal-sharing rules apply to your marriage, civil union or de facto relationship only if you lived together for at least three years.
A marriage, civil union or de facto relationship of less than three years is called a "relationship of short duration".
- Different Forms of Cheating in a Relationship
- Prisoner's dilemma
In the case of marriages or civil unions of short duration, special rules apply to decide how the property is divided, which mean that instead of there simply being equal shares, the property is divided according to the contributions the parties made to the marriage or civil union. In the case of de facto relationships of short duration, the Act doesn't apply at all unless there are special circumstances, such as there being a childwhich means that your legal rights will be determined by the ordinary rules of property ownership.
The court can decide to treat a marriage, civil union or de facto relationship of three years or more as if it were a relationship of short duration, if the court thinks this is just in all the circumstances.
Marriages and civil unions of short duration - In the case of a marriage or civil union of less than three years, equal sharing does not apply to - the family home or a particular family chattel if it was owned wholly or substantially by one spouse or partner at the start of the marriage or civil union, or the family home or a particular family chattel if it came to one spouse or partner, after the marriage or civil union began, by succession, by survivorship, as the beneficiary under a trust, or by gift from a third person, or the family home and all the family chattels if the contribution of one spouse or partner to the marriage or civil union was clearly disproportionately greater than that of the other In these cases, the share of each spouse or partner in the property in question is determined according to their contributions to the marriage or civil union.
In the case of relationship property other than the family home and chattels, each spouse or partner is entitled to share equally in the property unless his or her contribution to the marriage or civil union has been clearly greater than that of the other, in which case the shares are determined according to their contributions to the marriage or civil union. De facto relationships of short duration - In the case of a de facto relationship of less than three years, the courts have no jurisdiction to divide property under the Act.Why Men Cheat on Women They Love
This means that, in general, you are entitled only to property that you have legal title to: However, there is an exception to this, which applies when the court is satisfied either that there is a child of the relationship, or the partner applying for division under the Act made a substantial contribution to the de facto relationship, and that it would create serious injustice if the court didn't make an order under the Act When this exception applies, the share of each de facto partner in the relationship property is determined according to each partner's contribution to the relationship.
What orders can the court make in dividing the property?
The court can make various orders in relation to the property or to a specific item of property to give effect to the division, such as ordering property to be sold or, in the case of the home, ordering that one party has the right to occupy the property. The court considers the interests of any dependent children.
In determining the amount and value of the property the court takes into account any outstanding debts. Lump-sum payments to off-set future differences in income and living standards The court may award a lump-sum payment to one party, or order a transfer of relationship or separate property, if the income and living standards of one party are likely to be significantly higher after the relationship ends than those of the other party, because of the effects of the division of functions within the marriage, civil union or de facto relationship.
If you can't agree between you on how to divide the property, you can apply to the Family Court or High Court to deal with the question under the provisions of the Act. If neither athlete takes the drug, then neither gains an advantage. If both athletes take the drug, however, the benefits cancel out and only the dangers remain, putting them both in a worse position than if neither had used doping.
A classic example is an arms race like the Cold War and similar conflicts. From each side's point of view, disarming whilst their opponent continued to arm would have led to military inferiority and possible annihilation.
Conversely, arming whilst their opponent disarmed would have led to superiority. If both sides chose to arm, neither could afford to attack the other, but both incurred the high cost of developing and maintaining a nuclear arsenal. If both sides chose to disarm, war would be avoided and there would be no costs. Although the 'best' overall outcome is for both sides to disarm, the rational course for both sides is to arm, and this is indeed what happened. Both sides poured enormous resources into military research and armament in a war of attrition for the next thirty years until the Soviet Union could not withstand the economic cost.
Multiplayer dilemmas[ edit ] Many real-life dilemmas involve multiple players. Each villager makes a choice for personal gain or restraint. The collective reward for unanimous or even frequent defection is very low payoffs representing the destruction of the "commons".
A commons dilemma most people can relate to is washing the dishes in a shared house.
By not washing dishes an individual can gain by saving his time, but if that behavior is adopted by every resident the collective cost is no clean plates for anyone.
The commons are not always exploited: William Poundstonein a book about the prisoner's dilemma see References belowdescribes a situation in New Zealand where newspaper boxes are left unlocked.
How to division of property when a marriage or de facto relationship ends
It is possible for people to take a paper without paying defecting but very few do, feeling that if they do not pay then neither will others, destroying the system. Subsequent research by Elinor Ostromwinner of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, hypothesized that the tragedy of the commons is oversimplified, with the negative outcome influenced by outside influences.
Without complicating pressures, groups communicate and manage the commons among themselves for their mutual benefit, enforcing social norms to preserve the resource and achieve the maximum good for the group, an example of effecting the best case outcome for PD. One of several examples he used was "closed bag exchange": Two people meet and exchange closed bags, with the understanding that one of them contains money, and the other contains a purchase.
Either player can choose to honor the deal by putting into his or her bag what he or she agreed, or he or she can defect by handing over an empty bag.
In this game, defection always gives a game-theoretically preferable outcome. It is an example of the prisoner's dilemma game tested on real people, but in an artificial setting. On the game show, three pairs of people compete. When a pair is eliminated, they play a game similar to the prisoner's dilemma to determine how the winnings are split.
If they both cooperate Friendthey share the winnings 50— If one cooperates and the other defects Foethe defector gets all the winnings and the cooperator gets nothing. If both defect, both leave with nothing. Notice that the reward matrix is slightly different from the standard one given above, as the rewards for the "both defect" and the "cooperate while the opponent defects" cases are identical.
Emotional cheating may begin as an innocent friendship. Eventually, an emotional cheater finds himself intimately confiding in the person, sharing thoughts, dreams and an emotional closeness that would normally be reserved for his mate. In some ways, emotional cheating is more crippling to a relationship than physical cheating.
HowToLaw has partnered with JustAnswer.com
With physical cheating, the cheater may still feel emotionally connected to his partner and may only be seeking to fulfill a sexual fantasy. With emotional cheating, however, the cheater's heart may no longer be in the relationship. Cyber Cheating With the popularity of the Internet, cyber cheating is becoming a more common problem among couples. Cyber cheating can come in a variety of forms. Cyber cheating includes Internet pornography, online dating and flirting with other people on social networking sites.