Davis 15 Marriages as Enforceable Voluntary Contracts Nowhere in the 1950 Marriage Law do we find the terms"contract"(hetong 合同)or“formal agreement'”(yueding约定).However,in the four articles regarding guardianship,division of property,and financial support in divorce settlements(Articles20,2l,23,and25)the1950 law did use xieyif协议， another term often used to refer to legally binding agreements between spouses.Similarly,the new Marriage Law of 1980 never explicitly referred to "contract,"or hetong,but it did use yueding twice.Article 8 guaranteed that either a man or a woman could use a yueding to become a member of the other spouse's family and Article 13 stated that absent a yueding,all property acquired after marriage would be considered jointly owned归夫妻共同所 The 1980 law,however,was silent on treatment of property acquired before marriage a distinction Article 23 in the earlier 1950 law had considered when explaining that property women had owned before marriage would not be divided with husbands in the event of a divorce. As already noted,the 2001 revision of the 1980 Marriage Law added mul- tiple provisions to protect individual property whether acquired before or after marriage,and the 2011 SPC interpretation strengthened the property rights of third parties as well as those of individual spouses in ways that directly undermined equal claims to communal conjugal property夫妻共同 In Article 3,the Revised Marriage Law also for the first time intro- duced the term "contract,"or hetong.In addition the 2001 statute speaks directly about establishing individual claims to premarital personal assets (Articles 18 and 19),and greatly expands the use of yueding to specify the property claims of an individual spouse(Article 19). The attention to issues of side agreements before and during marriage,the introduction of contract as well as the new emphasis on personal choice dis- tinguish the Revised Law of 2001 from earlier legislation.However,whether such statutory shifts have any broad impact in a country where law is often aspirational and the state has repeatedly issued new statutes to dictate change remains an open question.On the other hand,because we know that the SPC issues interpretations only when local courts have been overwhelmed by cases initiated by local residents,one assumes that the public opinion on use and misuse of contract in cases of marital disputes had in fact shifted.I turn now to one of the most striking examples of the new centrality of enforceable contracts between engaged or married couples:loyalty agreements Loyalty Agreements I do not know when the first loyalty agreement was created or contested,but in legal handbooks and publications the most frequently cited case involves a Downloaded from mcx.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on June 12,2014Davis 15 Marriages as Enforceable Voluntary Contracts Nowhere in the 1950 Marriage Law do we find the terms “contract” (hetong 合同) or “formal agreement” (yueding 约定). However, in the four articles regarding guardianship, division of property, and financial support in divorce settlements (Articles 20, 21, 23, and 25) the 1950 law did use xieyi 协议, another term often used to refer to legally binding agreements between spouses. Similarly, the new Marriage Law of 1980 never explicitly referred to “contract,” or hetong, but it did use yueding twice. Article 8 guaranteed that either a man or a woman could use a yueding to become a member of the other spouse’s family and Article 13 stated that absent a yueding, all property acquired after marriage would be considered jointly owned 归夫妻共同所 有. The 1980 law, however, was silent on treatment of property acquired before marriage 婚前, a distinction Article 23 in the earlier 1950 law had considered when explaining that property women had owned before marriage would not be divided with husbands in the event of a divorce. As already noted, the 2001 revision of the 1980 Marriage Law added mul￾tiple provisions to protect individual property whether acquired before or after marriage, and the 2011 SPC interpretation strengthened the property rights of third parties as well as those of individual spouses in ways that directly undermined equal claims to communal conjugal property 夫妻共同 所有. In Article 3, the Revised Marriage Law also for the first time intro￾duced the term “contract,” or hetong. In addition the 2001 statute speaks directly about establishing individual claims to premarital personal assets (Articles 18 and 19), and greatly expands the use of yueding to specify the property claims of an individual spouse (Article 19). The attention to issues of side agreements before and during marriage, the introduction of contract as well as the new emphasis on personal choice dis￾tinguish the Revised Law of 2001 from earlier legislation. However, whether such statutory shifts have any broad impact in a country where law is often aspirational and the state has repeatedly issued new statutes to dictate change remains an open question. On the other hand, because we know that the SPC issues interpretations only when local courts have been overwhelmed by cases initiated by local residents, one assumes that the public opinion on use and misuse of contract in cases of marital disputes had in fact shifted. I turn now to one of the most striking examples of the new centrality of enforceable contracts between engaged or married couples: loyalty agreements. Loyalty Agreements I do not know when the first loyalty agreement was created or contested, but in legal handbooks and publications the most frequently cited case involves a Downloaded from mcx.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on June 12, 2014