The abuse of men by women

Abstract

Although numerous studies in the past have shown that men are more often seen as perpetrators of domestic and sexual abuse, clinicians and researchers have recently begun to critically consider the problem of intimate and sexual violence committed by women towards men. Despite the controversial debate over whether women are violent towards their husbands and partners, many research papers have shown that there is a prevalence of such violence. In addition, many studies have highlighted gender differences in the commission of domestic violence in terms of the different reasons and contexts in which violence occurs. This paper aims to present the latest results of research on risk factors, typologies, and motives of women perpetrators of violence in relationships, as well as to improve our understanding of the etiology and complexity of such violence. The first part of the paper explains in detail the typology and prevalence of violence against men, as well as the psychological and other characteristics of women perpetrators. The second part deals mainly with the causes and motives of women's violent behaviour towards men. The last section is dedicated to the effects of treatment and possible improvements. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of this topic and gives some recommendations for resolving the above issues.

Contract Law in East Central Europe

“…These include the rules on the principle of consensualism of contracts, the exceptionality of the statutory form, the application of the rules on statutory form to subsequent informal agreements of the parties, termination of formal contracts by informal agreement, agreed form, consequences of the infringement of statutory or agreed form, presumption of the completeness of parties' agreement contained in the formal document, means of concluding a contract in simple written form, and convalidation of a contract deficient in the form. 137 There are, however, two deviations of lesser importance. On the one hand, the rule on the mandatory written form of contracts for conveyance of real estate has been removed from the rules on the contract of sale and moved to the general rules on the form of contract.…”

“…Finally, a justifiable cause for withdrawal from negotiations may be the cessation of the economic reason to conclude the contract or having missed the opportunity of concluding another contract that was a precondition of the conclusion of the contract on which the parties negotiated. 137 In all these cases the withdrawing party is required to notify the other party in due time about the emergence of circumstances that represent a justifiable cause of withdrawal from the negotiations. 138…”

“…The SrbLO, in the part pertaining to effects of contracts for consideration, prescribes that if there was an obvious disproportion between the value of the contractual obligations of the parties at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the aggrieved party may avoid the contract if he or she did not know and ought not have known of their true economic value. 137 Contrary to the general rule on prescription periods applicable to avoidance, the SrbLO sets out a single, one-year prescription period for the avoidance of contracts on the grounds of laesio enormis. The prescription period is considered objective, since it commences from the moment of conclusion of the contract.…”

“…The requirement of the existence of a valid cause applies to contracts establishing obligations (in the German legal tradition called Verpflichtungsgeschäft), but not necessarily to contracts by which the parties dispose of existing and valid obligations (Verfügungsgeschäft). 137 The SrbLO further states that a contract is null if its cause does not exist or is unlawful. 138 An example of the distinction between illegal and immoral contracts, based on the rules on the cause of contract, is the contract on fiduciary transfer of ownership for the purpose of securing a claim, which has been used as a functional equivalent to the mortgage (hypothec).…”

“…136 Finally, the SrbLO sets out that the default rules on the repudiation of contract because of supervening events: the parties may exclude their application unless it is done contrary to the principle of good faith and fair dealing. 137 It shall be consid-ered that the party acted contrary to this principle if, for example, he or she was in a stronger bargaining position that enabled him or her to adjust the content of the contract in his or her own interest, whereby he or she should have been aware of the prospects of supervening events. The purpose of this rule is, therefore, to enable the parties to exclude the application of the rules on supervening events, which they can do so in the confines of the normal contractual risks.…”