Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Citation
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Parent Document
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2011-03-10
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4489909/schmitt-v-force/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (38)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
Full Text
452 charsOverall, Judge French found it to be “unusual” that such written documents purporting to be binding contracts were present in a relationship stemming from a romantic association. Indeed, the actions of the parties throughout the time they were together indicated to the court that so long as all was well in the relationship, the parties seemed content to let things stand as they were, and not resort to the terms of the ‘contracts’ they entered into.