“Nevertheless, I think the woman should have the opportunity to show that the court should, in all circumstances and notwithstanding the agreement, use that discretion to grant her a lump sum payment.” Which is the first, the scholarly judge found it a fact that the man has no threats with the intention of forcing his wife to accept unless the court would order. He made it clear that he would fight for the children if there was no agreement, but there was no finding from the scholarly judge – and indeed no evidence to support any finding – that he never defined what was ultimately enshrined in Article 8 as a sine qua non condition of the agreement. With regard to the fear of a scandalous divorce, it is clear from the correspondence that this had very little influence on her – herself, through her lawyers, who used her as a weapon to force an agreement. I only have to refer to their lawyer`s letter of October 31, 1975, in which they say that, in many more cases than in the past, the court will probably follow the terms of such a marriage agreement, that the court has entered into a more generous transaction in other circumstances. If there are circumstances in which the actual agreement reached is not entirely appropriate, it would appear that the Tribunal`s interference will only be what is necessary to remedy the deficit, as opposed to a complete revision of the finances to 32. (i) first, some agreements will not be applicable for public policy reasons4; and second, the agreement reached as a contract must not have been concluded as a result of a permanent event such as fraud, error or misrepresentation, etc. Indeed, given that there is equality at the top, the mere fact that the woman would have done better if she had been heard by the Court of Justice would generally not be a reason to give her more, since, in addition to her obligation under Section 25, the Court was also obliged to terminate agreements that do not offend public order. Since 1980, agreements between the parties on the division of property after divorce have been, as I have already mentioned, called “Edgar Agreements”, and the Tribunal`s approach of stopping or departing from the terms of such agreements remains largely the same.