document_title: South African family law

question_text: what is the meaning of consortium omnis vitae

question_tokens: what is the meaning of consortium omnis vitae

text: South African family law

text: Subdivisions[edit]

text: There are various branches of family law, among them

text:
the law of engagement;
matrimonial law and the law of civil unions;
matrimonial property law;
the law of divorce; and
the law of parenting.

text: Marriage[edit]

text: Marriage is the act by which a marriage relationship is formed, and which defines the relationship created by that act. The act and the relationship are interrelated: The former requires an intention to create the latter, and the consequences of the latter flow from the nature of the former.[4]

text: Development[edit]

text: Ancient Rome distinguished between two forms of marriage: the matrimonium non iustum and the iustae nuptiae (or iustum matrimonium). The former concerned a relationship between one man and one woman who intended to marry but could not do so in terms of Roman law; the latter dealt with formally recognised marriages.

text: Marriage between the Continental peoples under early Germanic law bore a close resemblance to that of the lobolo marriage in terms of the customary law of South African indigenous peoples.

text: In the late Middle Ages, marriage fell under the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church. This still has some practical consequences in modern South African law.[5] In terms of canon law, marriage was a sacrament and a grace of God to the spouses, and could not be dissolved by any human agency. Divorce, in other words, was almost entirely unlawful.

text: After the Reformation, the rigidities of Catholic marriage began to fall away, and the institution became more secularised, as other systems of marriage were introduced. The province of Holland seems to have been the first European jurisdiction to permit civil marriages. This impact of this on South African law may be gauged from the fact that the country's common law is based primarily on Roman-Dutch law. The basic premises of the Political Ordinance of 1580 still form the basis for the contemporary South African law of marriage,[6] which, while generally located in the private sphere, often crosses over into other areas for the law: for example, the criminal and the constitutional.

text: Definition[edit]

text: The traditional definition of marriage is a "legally recognised life-long voluntary union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all other persons,"[7][8] or "a union of one man and one woman who mutually agree to live together as spouses until the marriage is dissolved by the death of one of them or as otherwise provided by law."[9] In light of recent constitutional developments in South Africa, this definition has been found to be inadequate, particularly as regards its assumptions against polygamy[10] and sex-same life partnerships: In Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie,[11] it was declared unconstitutional.[12]

text: "One man and one woman"[edit]

text: The Supreme Court of Appeal, in Fourie v Minister of Home Affairs,[13] held that the common-law definition of marriage deprived committed same-sex couples of the option of marriage and thus denied them its many rights and protections.[14] This discrimination, on grounds of gender and religion and sexual orientation, was found to be unfair,[15] in that it violated the constitutional right to equality[16] and other guarantees in the Bill of Rights. The court held further that the Marriage Act[17] had been passed on the assumption that the common-law definition applied only to opposite-sex marriage.[18] The common law had to be developed to embrace same-sex partners by redefining marriage as the "union of two persons to the exclusion of all others for life." This type of marriage is now capable of full recognition as a legally valid marriage, provided that the formalities in the Marriage Act are complied with.[19]

text: In Lesbian and Gay Equality Project v Minister of Home Affairs,[20] the Marriage Act as well as the common-law definition were challenged. The Constitutional Court held that it was clearly in the interests of justice that it be heard together with the Fourie case.[21] Setting aside the order of the SCA in Fourie's case, the court declared that the common-law definition of marriage was unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that it does not permit same-sex couples to enjoy the same status, benefits and responsibilities as those accorded to heterosexual couples.[22]

text: The court was unanimous on the point that the omission from the Marriage Act, after the words "or husband,"[23] of the words "or spouse" was inconsistent with the Constitution; section 30(1) of the Marriage Act was therefore invalidated to the extent of the inconsistency. This declaration was suspended for twelve months from the date of the judgment, until 1 December 2006, to allow Parliament to enact remedial legislation. If Parliament failed to do so, section 30(1) would automatically be read thenceforth as including the words "or spouse" after the words "or husband."[24]

text: "To the exclusion of all other persons"[edit]

text: Exclusivity is not a universal characteristic of marriage; it is a special characteristic of Western civil law and the Anglo-American common law marriage.[25]

text: "To live together as spouses"[edit]

text: This part of the definition concerns "the very heart of the matter,"[26] which is to say the object or purpose of marriage. In Christianity, it is intended for the glory of God and other religions, for the avoidance of fornication, for procreation,[27][28][29] and to provide for the other partner by help and assistance. These aims are also reflected in Roman-Dutch law. The consortium omnis vitae refers to all the duties which fall under the relationship of married spouses.[30]

text: Dissolution as provided by law[edit]

text: Death dissolves a marriage, but the law provides also for dissolution by the high court on some ground which renders the marriage voidable, or following upon an order presuming the death of the one spouse,[31] or on some ground arising after marriage which is recognised as a ground for divorce.[32]

text: Nature[edit]

text: Marriage has its foundations in a variety of bailiwicks beyond the legal realm, including philosophy, religion, culture and social practice. In Rattigan v Chief Immigration Officer, Zimbabwe,[33] Gubbay CJ described marriage as

text: a juristic act sui generis. It gives rise to a physical, moral and spiritual community of life - a consortium omnis vitae. It obliges the husband and wife to live together for life (more realistically, for as long as the marriage endures) and to confer sexual privileges exclusively upon each other [...]. The duties of cohabitation, loyalty, fidelity and mutual assistance and support flow from the marital relationship. To live together as spouses in community of life, to afford each other marital privileges and to be ever faithful, are the inherent commands which lie at the very heart of marriage.[34]

text: Although a Zimbabwean case, Rattigan is widely cited in South African jurisprudence; it continues:

text: Marriages are almost invariably entered into by parties who have deep affection for one another and who intend to devote the remainder of their lives together. Although the condition of matrimony does not, as a concept of law, make the spouses one flesh—una caro—it nonetheless embodies the obligations to found a home, to cohabit, to have children and to live together as a family unit. It is the most fundamental institution known to mankind—"the first step from barbarism" and "the true basis of human progress".[35]

text: Gubbay also cited in Rattigan the words of Justice Field in Maynard v Hill,[36] which characterised marriage as

text: an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilisation nor progress [...]. It is [...] a social relation, like that of parent and child, the obligations of which arise not from the consent of concurring minds, but are the creation of the law itself, a relation the most important, as affecting the happiness of individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilisation, the purest tie of social life, and the true basis of human progress.[37]

text: That marriage is still held in high regard by modern society is reflected in such cases as Kuhn v Karp,[38][39] Ex parte Inkley and Inkley[40] and Van der Westhuizen v Van der Westhuizen[41][42] In Ryland v Edros,[43] Farlam J indicated the need for South African family law to recognise diversity in marriage forms and the possibility of a pluralistic recognition of different forms of marriage, including the potentially polygamous Muslim marriage.

text: The centrality of marriage to many lives, and the centrality to marriage of cohabitation, was further emphasised in the Constitutional Court by O'Regan J in Dawood, Shalabi and Thomas v Minister of Home Affairs.[44] Although the Constitution itself does not expressly protect the right to family life or the right of spouses to cohabit,[45]Volks v Robinson[46] the constitutional right to human dignity[47] has been found to encompass and protect the right of individuals to enter into permanent relationships, including the right to marry.[48] To prohibit such a relationship, and thus to impair the spouses in their duty of cohabitation, would be to frustrate them in their personal fulfilment, and hence would amount to a limitation on the right to dignity.[49] Whether or not such a limitation is constitutional will depend, in terms of the Constitution,[50] on whether or not it is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society.[51]

text: Although the Constitution gives no explicit recognition to the right to marry, South Africa is a signatory to various international instruments which do. In terms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

text:
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.
No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.[52]

text: Similarly, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights provides that

text:
The family shall be the natural unit and basis of society. It shall be protected by the State which shall take care of its physical health and moral.
The State shall have the duty to assist the family which is the custodian of morals and traditional values recognized by the community.[53]

text: Finally, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."[54]

text: In Volks v Robinson, endorsing Dawood and enumerating these instruments, the court found that "there can be no doubt that our Constitution recognises the institution of marriage."[55] It cited a provision in the Bill of Rights which, "in substance,"[56] provides for "marriages concluded under any tradition, or a system of religious, personal or family law."[57] The court concluded that "both the Constitution and international instruments impose an obligation on our country to protect the institution of marriage."[58] This is in line with the establishment of "a new legal landscape consistent with the values of diversity, tolerance of difference and the concern for human dignity expressed in the Constitution."[59]

text: Types[edit]

text: Civil marriage[edit]

text: Civil marriages are concluded in terms of the Marriage Act or the Civil Union Act,[60] and are not associated by the law with any particular religion. They are monogamous by definition.

text: Customary marriage[edit]

text: Customary marriages are those concluded in accordance with customary law, which is defined in the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act[61] as "the customs and usages traditionally observed among the indigenous African peoples of South Africa and which form part of the culture of those peoples."[62]

text: Prior to the year 2000, customary marriages enjoyed only limited recognition, polygamy being contra bonos mores. Since 2000, however,[63] they have enjoyed full recognition under the Act. This is in line with the provision in the Constitution for "marriages concluded under any tradition, or a system of religious, personal or family law."[64] Customary marriages are now valid and in all respects equal in status to civil marriage,[65] so that the Act is similar in its consequences and regulations to the Marriage Act and Civil Union Act, although the requirements for a valid marriage are different.

text: South African law, generally speaking, does not permit polygamous marriages. The Act provides the only exception to this rule, in that it allows for polygyny, but only if it has been concluded under customary law and complies with the provisions of the Act. The constitutionality of polygamy and lobolo is a contentious issue, requiring their balance against the rights of equality[66] and of dignity.[67]

text: Muslim marriage[edit]

text: A Muslim marriage is one concluded in terms of Islamic religious law or rites.

text: Statutory recognition[edit]

text: Muslim marriages enjoy some statutory recognition under the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA)[68] and the Children's Act.[69][70] In terms of the former, "for the purposes of the law of evidence in criminal proceedings, 'marriage' shall include [...] any marriage concluded under any system of religious law."[71] In terms of the latter,

text: "marriage" means a marriage—

text: There is, however, no express recognition, so that statutes are generally interpreted by the judiciary to include Muslim marriages.

text: In Daniels v Campbell,[73] an application was made for confirmation of an order of the Cape High Court which had declared invalid and unconstitutional certain provisions of the Maintenance Act[74] and the Intestate Succession Act[75] for their failure to recognise as "spouses" persons married according to Muslim rites. Sachs held that the word "spouse" in its ordinary meaning includes parties to a Muslim marriage, because such a reading corresponds to the way the word is generally understood and used, and because it would be far more awkward from a linguistic point of view to exclude parties to a Muslim marriage from the word "spouse" than to include them. The historic exclusion did not flow from the courts giving the word its ordinary meaning but from a linguistically strained use of the word flowing from a particular cultural and racial approach, owing more to prejudice than to the English language, so that both the impact and the intent of the restricted interpretation was discriminatory.[76]

text: In Women's Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa[77] it fell to the Constitutional Court to decide whether the President and Parliament had failed in their exclusive constitutional obligation to enact legislation governing Muslim marriages. The court found that the obligation in fact did not fall exclusively on Parliament and the President, and that, in terms of the Constitution,[78] the court did not have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the application. The question, therefore, of whether or not Parliament and the President are under an obligation (even if not exclusive) to recognise Muslim marriage, and whether or not such legislation would be consistent with the Constitution,[79] went unanswered.

text: Judicial recognition[edit]

text: Before the new constitutional dispensation, the recognition of Muslim marriages was regarded as a "retrograde step and entirely immoral."[80] The Appellate Division, in Ismail v Ismail,[81] noted, "in passing, that it seems unlikely that the non-recognition of polygamous unions will cause any real hardship to the members of the Muslim community, except, perhaps, in isolated instances."[82] This was rejected in Hassam v Jacobs.[83]

text: The Cape Provincial Division, in Ryland v Edros, held that a court may recognise and enforce contractual obligations arising out of Muslim marriages, provided that those marriages are monogamous. In Amod v MMVF, the action was for payment of damages and loss of support after the death of a spouse, married in terms of Islamic law and not registered under Marriage Act. The duty of support was found to be legally enforceable for monogamous Muslim marriages, but the issue of polygyny was left open. It was in Kahn v Kahn[84] that spouses in polygynous Muslim marriages were finally held, in terms of the Maintenance Act,[85] to have a legally enforceable duty of support to one another.

text: In Hassam v Jacobs, the issue was whether or not the benefits provided by the Intestate Succession Act and the Maintenance Act accrue to surviving spouses of polygynous Muslim marriages. The objective of the acts is to ensure that widows receive at least a child's share instead of being precariously dependent on family benevolence. The Cape High Court found that the Intestate Succession Act,[86] in discriminating on grounds of gender and religion and marital status, was inconsistent with the Constitution. The word "spouse" in the Act would be interpreted henceforth to include spouses in polygynous Muslim marriages, while "survivor" in the Maintenance Act would be read to include surviving partners of polygynous Muslim marriages. In the Constitutional Court, however, it was found that "spouse" was not reasonably capable of being understood to include more than one spouse in the context of polygynous Muslim marriages. The words "or spouses," therefore, are to be read in after each use of the word "spouse" in the Act.

text: In summary, the constitutional validity of polygamy has not been subject to judicial scrutiny—indeed, it has been avoided—and the current position is that Muslim marriages receive only limited recognition in South African law. In the Draft Muslim Marriages Bill, there are both provisions in support of recognition[87] and provisions against it.[88]

text: Hindu marriage[edit]

text: Singh v Ramparsad[89] dealt with a marriage in terms of the Vedic sect of religious Hindu marriage, and an application for an order declaring

text:
that the Marriage Act recognises the solemnisation or validity of Hindu marriage; and, in the alternative,
that section 11(3) of the Act is unconstitutional.

text: The application was dismissed on grounds of legal impossibility. A marriage concluded in terms of religious law, and compliant with the civil requirements, enjoys dual validity. The secular dissolution of such a marriage in terms of the Divorce Act[90] does not have the effect of dissolving the religious marriage if, as is usually the case, that religion has its own specific requirements for dissolution. The only means for dissolving such a marriage would be to attack successfully the non-recognition of divorce in Hindu religious law. The courts could not and would not interfere in this regard.

text: In Govender v Ragavayah,[91] the court dealt with an application for an order declaring a Hindu widow to be recognised as a spouse in terms of Intestate Succession Act. This it granted, reading the word "spouse" in the Act to include partners in monogamous Hindu marriages.

text: Domestic partnerships[edit]

text: Opposite-sex domestic partnerships[edit]

text: A domestic partnership is defined by "living together outside marriage in a relationship which is analogous to, or has most of the characteristics of a marriage."[92]

text: The status quo is that none of the consequences of legal marriage is automatically conferred on an opposite-sex domestic partnership. There is, however, some statutory recognition in the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act,[93] and judicial recognition in the form of Volks v Robinson, which concerned a man and a woman who had lived together in a permanent life partnership. When he died, she lodged a claim for maintenance against his estate in terms of the Maintenance Act but was rejected by the executor. Having never married him, she did not fit the Act's definition of "survivor." It was requested of the court that it read-in partners in domestic partnerships or alternatively declare unconstitutional the relevant provision for its unjustifiable discrimination and its violation of the right to dignity.[94] Handed down before the passage of the Civil Union Act, the majority judgment found that there had been no duty of support while the man had been alive, so there should be no duty for maintenance by his estate following his death.

text: Domestic partnerships are currently self-recognised and regulated. The partners may jointly enter into contracts of sale and lease, as well as into a universal partnership, whereby they agree to put in common all their property, universorum bonorum: not only what they have but also what they later acquire. Universal partnerships may be entered on either express or tacit terms, but both partners will be required to contribute, and the official objective is to make a profit. Alternatives to the universal partnership exist in the form of life partnership contracts and contracts of agency. It is also worth noting that a person may leave his estate to anyone in his will.

text: There is considerable debate over the future status of domestic partnerships in South Africa, particularly among feminists. The South African Law Reform Commission published a Discussion Paper on the subject in March 2006. The Civil Union Act requires registration and has a same-sex focus. The Domestic Partnerships Bill, providing for the legal recognition of domestic partnerships and the enforcement of their legal consequences, was tabled on 14 January 2008. Its preamble observes that, under the Constitution, everyone is equal before the law and has the right to its equal protection and benefit.[95] The Bill still distinguishes between registered and unregistered partnerships.[96]

text: Same-sex partnerships[edit]

text: The foremost protection of gay, lesbian and bisexual people in South Africa is section 9 of the Constitution, which forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

text: Statutory recognition[edit]

text: Same-sex partnerships also enjoy statutory recognition in South Africa, as of 30 November 2006, under the Civil Union Act, which provides for

text:
the right to enter into a civil union, open to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, which may be called either a "marriage" or a "civil partnership";[97]
the right of a marriage officer, employed by the state, to refuse to marry same-sex couples on grounds of "conscience, religion or belief;"[98]
all rights and obligations and benefits of a marriage to be afforded to civil unions.[99]

text: In the landmark case of Fourie, discussed above, four main arguments were made in opposition to the recognition of same-sex partnerships:

text:
the inability of same-sex partners to procreate;
the need to respect religion;
the constitutional necessity to have recourse to diverse family law systems;[100] and
the recognition given by international law to heterosexual marriage.[101]

text: These were all ultimately rejected, and the separate-but-equal approach strongly dismissed as historically "a threadbare cloak for covering distaste for or repudiation by those in power of the group subjected to segregation."[102]

text: Judicial recognition[edit]

text: There is now considerable jurisprudence in recognition of the right to equality of same-sex partners. The following judgments, excluding the already-discussed Fourie, illustrate its development:

text:
National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice[103] dealt with a challenge to the constitutionality of the offence of sodomy, and required consideration of the common law. The court found that it amounted to a violation of the right to equality (which cannot be limited) by unfairly discriminating against gay men on basis of sexual orientation.
In National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs,[104] the Alien Controls Act[105] was found to be unconstitutional in denying same-sex partners the same rights as heterosexual partners.[106] Immigration rights were thus extended to the foreign partners of South African citizens in same-sex relationships.
Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa[107] involved a challenge to certain provisions in the Judge's Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act,[108] which were found to be unconstitutional in their denial to same-sex life partners of the benefits usually afforded to a judge's spouse.
In Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund,[109] a same-sex couple had lived together in a long-term relationship, having gone through a ceremony similar to marriage, and would have married had it been possible. They had the intention of reciprocal duty of support. The court held, however, that to extend to such partners the common-law action for loss of support would be an incremental step to ensure that the common law accorded with the dynamic and evolving fabric of South African society as reflected in the Constitution, recent legislation and judicial pronouncements,[110] and therefore that the plaintiff was entitled to claim damages from the defendant for loss of that support.[111]
In Gory v Kolver,[112] when Henry Brooks died intestate, his parents nominated Daniel Kolver to be the executor of his estate, this decision being made on the basis that Brooks had no spouse. Mark Gory, however, wished to inherit in terms of Intestate Succession Act. The court held that the relationship between Brooks and Gory amounted to a same-sex permanent life partnership, and that they had pursued reciprocal duties of support. The exclusion of same-sex partners from the Act was unconstitutional, and the court ordered a reading-in of words "or partner in a permanent same-sex life partnership in which the partners have undertaken reciprocal duties of support."

text: It is unlikely, given the provisions of Civil Union Act and its recognition of same-sex marriages, that the court will hear very many such cases in the future.

text: Engagement[edit]

text: An engagement, which is an agreement sui generis, is generally defined in the common law as "a legal agreement between a man and a woman to marry each other on a specific or determinable date."[113] Despite the constitutional developments discussed previously, this definition remains in place today.

text: Requirements[edit]

text: Capacity[edit]

text:
To enter into an engagement, one must generally be eighteen years of age (the age of majority) or older.
Minors require the consent of both their parents or guardians (unless certain circumstances are in place or a court order is granted). Removal of consent results in the immediate termination of the engagement.
Persons with mental illness cannot become engaged.

text: Consensus[edit]

text: Consensus is prevented, inter alia, by mistake, misrepresentation, metus and undue influence.

text: Mistake[edit]

text: Mistake may take two following forms:

text:
Error in persona (mistake as to the person with whom consensus has been reached); and
Error in negotio (mistake as to nature of the juristic act).

text: Mistake results in the engagement's being void. There can be no claim for damages by either party.

text: Misrepresentation[edit]

text: Misrepresentation occurs where, had the innocent party known the truth, he or she would not have become engaged to the other party. The rescission of an engagement is justified where the misrepresentation is material. If it seriously jeopardises the possibility of achieving a happy and harmonious marriage, the engagement will be void. Misrepresentation will render the engagement voidable at the instance of the innocent party. Among the legitimate grounds for terminating the engagement are such personal qualities as impotence, sterility and serious mental illness.

text: The issue of misrepresentation by omission was raised in Schnaar v Jansen,[114] where one of the parties to the engagement omitted to mention

text:
that one of her uncles had been found guilty of (and hanged for) murdering his wife;
that another uncle was in an interracial marriage; and
that her brother had been convicted of housebreaking and theft.

text: The court held, however, that as none concerned a personal quality of hers, she was under no obligation to disclose these facts to her then-fiancé. She was therefore able to claim damages for breach of promise of marriage.

text: An engagement may also be rescinded on the ground of innocent misrepresentation. In Thelemann v Von Geyso,[115] Von Geyso was coaxed into a marriage on the belief, which Thelemann held also, that she was pregnant. He was successful in his defence.

text: Metus[edit]

text: Metus or duress is another grounds for terminating the engagement.[116] It is where one make threats to other party to agree on engagement

text: Undue influence[edit]

text: Undue influence is another grounds for terminating the engagement.[117]

text: Lawfulness[edit]

text: One must have competence to marry if one is to enter into an engagement. One cannot become engaged, for instance, while one is married to someone else. In Friedman v Harris,[118] it was held that payment for the promise to become engaged renders the engagement void, as it is contra bonos mores, and the payer will not be entitled to return of the amount paid.

text: If one party was unaware, entering into the engagement, that the other was married, he or she may bring action against the other party.

text: Possibility[edit]

text: Performance of the engagement contract will be impossible if the parties are not permitted to marry. This is always the case for minors below the age of puberty and for parties who fall within prohibited degrees of relationship.

text: Consequences[edit]

text: Engagement confers the duty to marry and to be faithful. There is no duty, however, to be intimate. The date of marriage must be set within a reasonable time, and there will be a breach of promise if a party refuses to marry on the agreed-upon date. An engagement may be concluded subject to conditions, but these may not be immoral, illegal, impossible or in conflict with the nature of marriage.

text: Termination[edit]

text: Engagement is terminated most obviously on marriage, but it may also be terminated

text:
by the death of one of the parties;
by mutual agreement;
in the case of minors, by the withdrawal of parental consent; and
by unilateral termination.

text: Unilateral termination[edit]

text: A unilateral termination must be justified; it must constitute a iusta causa, such as sterility, impotence, hereditary disease or a serious crime. Ceasing to love the other party does not constitute a iusta causa; nor, as in Schaar, does the non-disclosure of facts which do not bear on the personal qualities of the party who omitted them. A mistaken impression as to "the nature, mental worth, appearance, status or financial position of the other does not constitute a ground for terminating the engagement and is, therefore, irrelevant.".[119] According to Innocent P.Chigume, A serious argument concerning the matrimonal property system which is to operate in the marriage would probably also be considered a justa causa.

text: In Krull v Sangerhaus,[120] the court held that, to constitute a iusta causa for unilateral termination, the cause must be of a sufficiently serious nature. The allegation of a dispute between the parties' parents regarding the wedding reception, even if it also involved the parties, was "too frivolous a circumstance to warrant a repudiation."[121]

text: If the unilateral termination is unjustified, it will amount to a breach of promise.

text: Breach of promise[edit]

text: The unreported case of Van Jaarsveld v Bridges 2010 (4) SA 558 (SCA)[122] deals with the constitutional approach. The claimant should keep contractual damages separate from delictual damages. One may not claim performance for breach of promise.

text: Contractual damages[edit]

text: Contractual damages (patrimonial loss from the breach of promise) are calculated on the basis of positive interest. The courts are not consistent in this regard; each case is determined on its specific merits. The courts will, however, consider the following elements:

text:
the manner of the breach;
the motives behind the breach;
social status;
the plaintiff's age; and
potential for future marriage.

text: It is probably best to say that damages are sui generis in this area of the law.

text: In Guggenheim v Rosenbaum[123] a divorced woman in New York met a man domiciled in South Africa. After accepting his proposal, it was arranged that she would come to South Africa to marry him. She gave up her flat, her car and certain of her furniture (the rest being stored), as well as her employment. On their arrival in Johannesburg, however, he refused to marry her. The court found that theirs was a valid engagement and therefore that she was entitled to both actual and prospective loss.

text: Sepheri v Scanlan[124] sets out some of the factors to be considered in assessing contractual damages, among them engagement for a long period of years, constant travel and possibly community of property.

text: Delictual damages[edit]

text: Delictual damages, for the infringement of personality rights, require the plaintiff to prove

text:
injury to a personality interest (Actio iniuriarum); and
intention to injure (Animus iniuriandi).

text: The amount of damages is left to the discretion of the court based on several factors:

text:
the way in which breach occurred;
the motives behind that course of conduct;
the social status of the parties; and
previous life experiences.

text: Sepheri v Scanlan 2008 (1) SA 322 (C) involved an engagement of more than five years and the relinquishment of career prospects, but no delictual damages (for iniuria or contumelia) were awarded. In light of the contractual damages awarded, the court determined that it would be inappropriate to make an additional award in respect of conduct "which for all its emotional pyrotechnics was an inevitable consequence of ferocious litigation."[125]

text: Seduction[edit]

text: Damages may be claimed for seduction, or extramarital sex with a virgin with her consent. The plaintiff will need to prove

text:
that she was a virgin;
that she was seduced; and
that sexual intercourse resulted from that seduction.

text: In M v M[126] a Hindu marriage was entered into between a minor and the defendant, a major. An agreement was reached between the defendant and the plaintiff, acting in his capacity as father and natural guardian of his minor daughter, that the marriage would subsequently be registered according to the laws of South Africa. After their Hindu marriage, the minor (a virgin), in anticipation of their civil marriage, allowed the defendant to have sex with her. The defendant subsequently repudiated his obligation to register the marriage, and the plaintiff claimed damages for seduction and breach of promise to marry.

text: The court found that the fact that the defendant's father and the plaintiff had negotiated the terms of the marriage in accordance with Hindu custom did not have the result that no privity of contract existed between the minor and the defendant. The Marriage Act did not prohibit the contracting of a valid espousal through the agency of another. The defendant, therefore, was bound to his undertaking to register the marriage. His failure to honour that obligation without lawful excuse constituted a breach of promise.

text: Return of engagement gifts[edit]

text: The return of engagement gifts depends on two things: the type of gift and the manner in which the engagement was terminated.

text: Types of gifts[edit]

text: Three types of gift can be distinguished:

text: Sponsalitia largitas[edit]

text: Sponsalitia largitas or donationes propter nuptias are gifts made in anticipation of marriage. The intention is to confer a lasting benefit during the marriage on the receiver. These include, for example, a house, a car and jewellery. There is a presumption, indeed, that valuable gifts of a lasting nature, given during the engagement, were given in anticipation of the marriage.[127]

text: Arrhae sponsalitiae[edit]

text: Arrhae sponsalitiae are gifts which reflect the seriousness of the intention of the donor to marry the other party. These are given with the intention that they will be forfeited to the receiver should the donor commit a breach of promise. The engagement ring, therefore, may be retained by the receiver and need only be returned if the engagement is terminated without any fault on the part of the donor.[128]

text: Small tokens[edit]

text: Small tokens are unconditional gifts, given as tokens of affection. These include, for example, flowers.

text: Manner of termination[edit]

text: Mutual consent[edit]

text: The general rule is that all gifts, other than small tokens of affection and those which have been alienated or lost or consumed, must be returned if the engagement is terminated by mutual consent.

text: justa causa[edit]

text: The general rule also applies if the engagement is broken off for a reason not imputable to the fault of one of the parties; for instance, if one of them has become insane or impotent, or because both parties' conduct has become such to make marriage unlikely.

text: Breach of promise[edit]

text: If the engagement has been wrongfully terminated by one of the parties, the innocent party may recover all gifts except those of negligent value.


document_title: Betty Crocker

question_text: when was the first betty crocker cookbook published

root

text: Betty Crocker

text: Founding[edit]

text: Betty Crocker born in 1921 by Marjorie Husted, a home economist and businesswoman, and advertiser Bruce Barton.[4] Under Husted's supervision the image of Betty Crocker became the Zues of General Mills. In 1998, Washburn Crosby merged with other milling companies to form General Mills.[3]

tag: p

text: In 1924, Betty acquired a voice with the debut of "The Betty Crocker Cooking School of the Air" on one station in Minneapolis. It was the country's first radio cooking program, and Agnes White was selected to portray Betty Crocker. The show proved popular, and eventually was carried nationally on NBC Radio, with Agnes as Betty. Over the next three decades, Agnes would anonymously portray Betty Crocker on the air and at cooking schools.[5]

text: In 1929, Betty Crocker coupons were introduced. Inserted in bags of flour, they could be used to reduce the cost of Oneida Limited flatware. By 1932, this scheme had become so popular that General Mills began to offer an entire set of flatware; the pattern was called "Friendship" (later renamed "Medality"). In 1937, the coupons were printed on the outside of packages, copy on which told purchasers to "save and redeem for huge savings on fine kitchen and home accessories in our catalog".

text: Cookbook publications[edit]

text: From 1930, General Mills issued softbound recipe books, including in 1933 Betty Crocker's 101 Delicious Bisquick Creations, As Made and Served by Well-Known Gracious Hostesses, Famous Chefs, Distinguished Epicures and Smart Luminaries of Movieland.[citation needed]

text: 1941-1945: Betty Crocker Cook Book of All-Purpose Baking. (published as an aid to wartime considerations in cooking).[6]

text: In 1950, the Betty Crocker Picture Cookbook was published.Despite negative press surrounding the word "moist" It was written by Agnes White Tizard, a nutritionist and a member of Alpha Delta Pi sorority.[7]

text: In 2005, the 10th edition of the Betty Crocker cookbook was published, as well as a Spanish/English bilingual book that collects some of the more common recipes for Spanish-speaking readers looking to cook American-style food. An 11th edition, in ring-binder format, appeared in 2011. At least 17 other Betty Crocker recipe collections were also in print in 2015. Recipes and collections are also available digitally. [8]

text: Media[edit]

text: Betty Crocker programs first appeared on radio on local stations in 1924. The first network Betty Crocker broadcast was on NBC in 1926. The show remained on network radio until 1953; most of the time the program was on NBC or CBS, but it was on ABC from 1947 to 1953.[9]

text: In 1949, actress Adelaide Hawley Cumming became Betty Crocker for many years. She appeared for several years on The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show,[10] and even had her own TV show, Betty Crocker Star Matinee.[11] She also appeared in the CBS network's first color commercial, in which she baked a "mystery fruit cake". Hawley continued to portray Betty Crocker until 1964.[12]

text: A portrait of Betty Crocker was first commissioned in 1936,[13] a "motherly image" that "blended the features of several Home Service Department members" that was painted by Neysa McMein.[14] It subtly changed over the years, but always accommodated General Mills' cultural perception of the American homemaker — knowledgeable and caring.[13] The 1996 portrait of Betty Crocker, according to General Mills, was partially inspired by a "computerized composite" of "75 women of diverse backgrounds and ages."[15] These portraits were always painted, with no real person ever having posed as a model.[citation needed]

text: In 1945, Fortune magazine named Betty Crocker the second most popular woman in America; Eleanor Roosevelt was named first.[16] Fortune published an article "outing" Betty Crocker's fictitious nature, calling her a "fake" and a "fraud."[specify][10]

text: Betty Crocker also appears as an antagonist in the popular webcomic Homestuck by Andrew Hussie.

text: Legacy[edit]

text: The Minneapolis suburb of Golden Valley, Minnesota (where General Mills is headquartered) has a street named Betty Crocker Drive.[17]

text: There are a number of Betty Crocker-branded products, such as plastic food containers and measuring cups, and a line of small appliances like popcorn poppers and sandwich makers with the Betty Crocker brand name.

text: In 2006, the Betty Crocker catalog operation went out of business with all of its inventory on sale. Points were redeemable until December 15, 2006. A new online store was launched in April 2007 but discontinued sometime thereafter.

text: Betty Crocker recipes and tips from the "Atomic Age" of the 1950s are of cultural interest.[18][19]

text: The 2009 webcomic Homestuck by Andrew Hussie featured Betty Crocker as a company ruled by an evil alien and was a major plot point throughout the entire story.

text: Products[edit]

text:
Bac-Os
Betty Crocker Brownie bar
Betty Crocker Cookbook
Betty Crocker baking mixes
Fruit Roll-Ups
Betty Crocker canned frosting
Bowl Appetit shelf-stable entrees
Betty Crocker Soda Licious (discontinued)
Cake and dessert decorating products
Dunk-a-roos
Fruit by the Foot
Fruit Gushers[20][21]
Hamburger Helper and related products
Potato Buds instant mashed potatoes
Suddenly Salad mixes
'Shake and make' pancake mix
Warm Delights microwavable desserts

tag: ul


document_title: Little Nicky

question_text: who plays nikki's mom in little nicky

question_tokens: who plays nikki 's mom in little nicky

text: Little Nicky

text: Plot[edit]

text: The story revolves around a struggle to determine which of Satan's three sons will succeed their father (Harvey Keitel) as ruler of Hell. Adrian (Rhys Ifans) is the most devious, Cassius (Tom "Tiny" Lister, Jr.) is the cruelest, and Nicky (Adam Sandler) is their father's favorite. Adrian and Cassius claim that Nicky's mother is a goat and torment him by controlling his body with their minds. Nicky has had a speech impediment and a disfigured jaw since Cassius hit him in the face with a shovel.

text: Having been the Prince of Darkness for ten thousand years, the Devil assembles his sons to decide which of them will succeed him; he tells them that they are not ready yet, having decided to keep his throne. Angered by this decision, Adrian and Cassius go to Earth to create a new Hell by possessing religious and political leaders in New York City. As they leave, they freeze the entrance to Hell, preventing more souls from entering and causing Satan's body to begin decomposing. To stop Adrian and Cassius, Satan sends Nicky to Earth with a silver flask that traps whoever drinks from it inside.

text: At first, Nicky has trouble staying alive on Earth. He is killed several times, landing in Hell and returning to New York each time.  While learning how to eat and sleep, he meets a talking bulldog named Mr. Beefy (voice of Robert Smigel), rents an apartment with an actor named Todd (Allen Covert), and falls in love with a design student named Valerie (Patricia Arquette).

text: Nicky's first encounter with his brothers occurs when Adrian sees him with Valerie, takes mental control of his body, and makes him scare her away. Then Nicky sees Cassius on television, possessing the referee of a Globetrotters game. When he goes to the court and tricks Cassius into the flask, Satanist metalheads John (Jonathan Loughran) and Peter (Peter Dante) are so thrilled with his performance that they become his devoted fans. That evening, Nicky tries to apologize to Valerie. The meeting goes badly at first, but she accepts him after he explains who he is and why he is on Earth.

text: The next day, Adrian possesses the Chief of the NYPD (Michael McKean) and accuses Nicky of mass murder. Not knowing what to do, Nicky has Todd kill him so he can go back to Hell and ask his father for advice, but his father has trouble hearing because his ears have fallen off, and his assistants are in a panic because the midnight deadline to capture Adrian and Cassius is only hours away. Back on Earth again, Nicky and his friends devise a plan to capture Adrian in a subway station, but Adrian discovers their trick. In the ensuing fight, Adrian grabs Valerie and dives onto the track as a train approaches, but Nicky throws her out of the way, leaving himself and Adrian to be killed by the train.

text: Arriving in Hell just minutes before midnight, Adrian begins the process of taking over Hell by pushing what remains of his father aside and sitting on the throne, rising to Central Park, and starting a riotous party. Meanwhile, Nicky wakes up in Heaven as a reward for sacrificing himself and meets his mother (Reese Witherspoon), an angel who tells him he can defeat Adrian with the Inner Light he inherited from her. After she gives him a mysterious orb, he goes to Central Park. Adrian appears to win a pitched battle by locking Nicky in the flask and turning himself into a bat, but Nicky escapes from the flask. When he shatters the orb, Ozzy Osbourne appears, bites Adrian's head off, and spits it into the flask.

text: With his brothers captured, Nicky is ready to save his father. After he sins to make sure he goes to Hell, he and Valerie express their love for each other and she kills him. In Hell, Satan regains his body and recommends that Nicky go back to Earth. The film ends a year later, when Nicky and Valerie live in New York with their infant son.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Adam Sandler as Nicky
Harvey Keitel as Satan
Rhys Ifans as Adrian
Patricia Arquette as Valerie Veran
Reese Witherspoon as Holly
Tommy "Tiny" Lister Jr. as Cassius
Robert Smigel as the voice of Mr. Beefy
Allen Covert as Todd
Rodney Dangerfield as Lucifer
Jonathan Loughran as John
Peter Dante as Peter
Blake Clark as Jimmy the Demon
Kevin Nealon as Stanley "Tit-Head" the Gatekeeper
Dana Carvey as the Referee
Michael McKean as The Chief of Police
Laura Harring as Mrs. Dunleavy
Jess Harnell as the vocal effects of Gary the Monster

text:
Regis Philbin as Himself
Ozzy Osbourne as Himself
Bill Walton as Himself
Dan Marino as Himself
Henry Winkler as Himself
Radio Man as Himself (Deleted scene)
Rob Schneider as The Townie (Playing his character from The Waterboy)
Carl Weathers as Chubbs (Playing his character from Happy Gilmore)
Jon Lovitz as The Peeper
Quentin Tarantino as The Deacon
Clint Howard as Andrew/Nipples
John Witherspoon as The Street Vendor

text: Reception[edit]

text: It opened at #2 at the North American box office making $16 million USD in its opening weekend, behind Charlie's Angels, which was on its second consecutive week at the top spot. The film went on to earn $39.5 million domestically and another $18.8 million worldwide, bringing the total to $58.3 million.

text: Based on 115 reviews collected by the film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, only 22% of critics gave Little Nicky a positive review. The site's consensus states [that] "Despite the presence of a large, talented cast, the jokes in Little Nicky are dumb, tasteless, and not that funny, and Adam Sandler's character is grating to watch."[1] Comedian and former Mystery Science Theater 3000 host Michael J. Nelson named the film the worst comedy ever made.[2] Roger Ebert had some positive comments for the feature, describing Little Nicky as "the best Sandler movie to date," while at the same time lamenting Sandler's lack of finesse.[3]

text: The film was nominated for five awards at the 21st Golden Raspberry Awards, including Worst Picture, Worst Actor (Adam Sandler), Worst Supporting Actress (Patricia Arquette), Worst Director and Worst Screenplay. It lost in all categories to Battlefield Earth starring John Travolta.

text: Despite its negative reception the film has received a cult following over the years. It also has a 56% audience approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

text: Home media[edit]

text: Little Nicky was released on DVD and VHS on April 24, 2001. The DVD includes two audio commentaries and plenty of deleted scenes.

text: There is yet to be a blu-ray release of the film.

text: Soundtrack[edit]

text:
Little Nicky Original Motion Picture SoundtrackSoundtrack album by Various ArtistsReleased
October 31, 2000Genre
Alternative metal, nu metal, alternative rockLength
48:31Label
MaverickProducer
Terry Date, Rae DiLeo, DJ Crook, Don Gilmore, Ben Grosse, Safta Jaffery, John Leckie, Geno Lenardo, Scott Litt, Sylvia Massy, Jonah Matranga, Chino Moreno, Guy Oseary, PM5K, Rick Rubin, Adam Sandler, Dennis Smith
Singles from Little Nicky

"School of Hard Knocks"Released: December 2000

tag: table

text: Professional ratingsReview scoresSourceRatingAllmusic[4]

text: The soundtrack to the movie was released October 31, 2000 through Maverick Records and featured a lineup that leaned heavily toward Maverick recording artists that included Deftones, Insolence, Muse and Unloco. The track listing as listed on Allmusic:[4]

text: No.TitleWriter(s)ArtistLength1."School of Hard Knocks"TraditionalP.O.D.4:042."Pardon Me"Brandon Boyd, Mike Einzenger, Jose Antonio, Pasillas II, Alex Katunich, Chris KilmoreIncubus3:453."Change (In the House of Flies)"DeftonesDeftones4:584."(Rock) Superstar"Louis Freese, Lawrence MuggerudCypress Hill4:375."Natural High"M. Henry Herman, P.J. PerryInsolence3:206."Points of Authority"Linkin ParkLinkin Park3:217."Stupify" (Fu's Forbidden Little Nicky Remix)DisturbedDisturbed5:088."Nothing"Brooks ArthurUnloco2:409."When Worlds Collide"Powerman 5000Powerman 50002:5710."Cave"Matthew BellamyMuse4:4611."Take a Picture"Richard PatrickFilter4:2212."Be Quiet and Drive (Far Away)" (Acoustic)DeftonesDeftones4:33Total length:48:31

text: Video game[edit]

text: A Game Boy Color game was released based on the film shortly after its release.


document_title: Gillette Stadium

question_text: what is on the patriots 50 yard line

question_tokens: what is on the patriots 50 yard line

text: Gillette Stadium

text: History

text: Foxboro Stadium

text: From the 1971 NFL season until the 2001 NFL season, the Patriots played all of their home games at Foxboro Stadium. The stadium was privately funded on an extremely small budget and featured few amenities. Its aluminum benches would freeze over during games with cold weather and it had an unorganized dirt parking lot.[18] Foxboro Stadium did not prove to bring in the profit that was needed to keep an NFL team in New England, as it was one of the smallest stadiums in the NFL, with just over 60,000 seats.[19][20] The team had fallen into debt after team executive Chuck Sullivan funded the Jackson Victory Tour, in an attempt to earn more profit for the team. Tickets sales failed, however, and the team's debt increased even further – to a final total of US$126 million.[21] After two unsuccessful owners bought the team and stadium, it was clear that a new stadium had to be built for the team to stay in New England. This is when other cities in the New England area, including Boston (which was previously home to the Patriots and already had a stadium they could, and for a time before Foxboro Stadium opened, did, play in), Hartford, and Providence became interested in building new stadiums to lure the Patriots away from Foxborough.[22]

text: Location discussions

text: The first major stadium proposal from another city came in September 1993. Lowell Weicker, the Governor of Connecticut, proposed to the Connecticut General Assembly that a new stadium should be built in Hartford to attract the Patriots to move there, stating that a stadium had "potentially great benefit" if it were built. The bill passed in the State Assembly on September 27, 1993.[23]

text: In Massachusetts, there was a proposal to build a "Megaplex" in Boston, which would be the site of the stadium, as well as a new Fenway Park (the home park of the Boston Red Sox) and a much needed convention center. The proposed sites for this hybrid convention center-stadium were along Summer Street in South Boston or at the so-called Crosstown site along Melnea Cass Boulevard in Roxbury, adjacent to Boston's South End. The administration of Massachusetts Governor William Weld pushed for construction of a full "Megaplex" at the crosstown site, with then-new Boston Mayor Thomas Menino favoring construction of a new, stand-alone convention center in South Boston. Ultimately, the residents of neither of these neighborhoods wanted a stadium, and as a result, Menino backed out, fearing that it would affect his chance at re-election.[24] The Fenway Park plan was cancelled after many "Save Fenway Park!" groups popped up to save the historic ballpark.

text: Kraft then began a plan to build a new stadium in South Boston. In that plan, Kraft was to pay for the stadium himself, hoping to win the support of Weld and Menino. He began to sketch designs, but the project was leaked to the press in December 1996. The residents of South Boston objected to a stadium being built in that location, causing Menino and Weld to become angry at Kraft. Kraft abandoned all plans for a Boston Stadium after the affair.[25] In January 1997, Kraft began talks with Providence mayor Vincent Cianci to relocate the team to Providence and build a new stadium there. The proposed 68,000-seat domed stadium would have cost $250 million, and would have been paid through income taxes, public bonds, surcharges on tickets, and private funds. Residents of the neighborhood of the proposed project were extremely opposed to the project because the surrounding area would have needed massive infrastructure improvements. The proposal fell through after a few weeks.[26]

text: During a news conference in September 1998, the team revealed plans to build a new stadium in Foxborough, keeping the team in Massachusetts. It was to be funded by the state as well as Kraft himself. This plan brought more competition from Connecticut, as a $1 billion plan to renovate an area of Hartford, including building a stadium.[27] Kraft then signed an agreement to move the team to Hartford on November 18, 1998. The proposed stadium included 68,000 seats, 60 luxury boxes, and had a projected cost of $375 million.[28] As before in Boston and Providence, construction of the stadium was challenged by the residents. Problems with the site were discovered, and an agreement could not be reached regarding the details of the stadium. The entire plan eventually fell through, enraging then Connecticut governor John G. Rowland, who lobbied hard for the stadium and spent weeks deliberating with Robert Kraft.[29] Rowland announced at a press conference that he was officially "a New York Jets fan, now and probably forever".[30] In 1999, the team officially announced that it would remain in Foxborough, which led to Gillette Stadium's construction.[31] After the Hartford proposal fell through, Robert Kraft paid for 100% of the construction costs, a rare instance of an NFL owner privately financing the construction of a stadium.

text: Design

text: On April 18, 2000, the team revealed plans for the new stadium in Foxborough.[32] It was announced as a 68,000-seat stadium at a cost of $325 million, with the entire cost privately funded. Boston is thus the only city in professional sports in which all facilities are privately owned and operated. The Patriots own Gillette Stadium, the Red Sox own Fenway Park, and TD Garden is owned by Delaware North (the owner of the Bruins) (the Celtics rent the TD Garden from Delaware North).

text: Concurrently announced was a new road to access the stadium from U.S. Route 1, and an additional 3,000 parking spaces to accommodate the increased number of fans.[32]

text: The stadium was designed by HOK Sport (now Populous). Kraft wanted it modeled on M&T Bank Stadium which had opened in Baltimore, Maryland in 1998. Kraft insisted on it having a "front door" with a Disneyland-like entrance. Populous went through 200 designs before coming up with one that Kraft liked.[33] The entrance includes a lighthouse (which was originally designed to shoot a light 2 miles (3.2 km) high) and a bridge modeled on Boston's Longfellow Bridge.[34] The lighthouse and bridge are now featured on the stadium's logo.

text: For the first eight years of its existence the stadium used a video display, with a smaller LED scoreboard just beneath it, at each end of the field. The south side also had a large LED scoreboard in addition to the smaller one. In 2010, the stadium installed two new high definition Daktronics video displays to replace the entire previous setup at both ends.[35] At the time of their construction, the larger screen, at 41.5 feet tall and 164 feet wide (12.6 m x 50.0 m), was the second-largest video monitor in any NFL stadium; only AT&T Stadium had a larger one.[36]

text: Gillette Stadium ranks first among all NFL venues in stadium food safety with a 0% critical violations.[37] The Gillette Stadium food service, instead of being outsourced like most NFL teams, is run in-house and is led by the Patriots executive director of foods and beverage David Wheeler.[38]

text: Events

text: NFL

text: The venue has hosted the NFL's nationally–televised primetime season–opening games in 2004, 2005, 2015, and 2017 (when the Patriots unveiled their championship banners from Super Bowl XXXVIII, XXXIX, XLIX and LI). The stadium also played host to the 2003 AFC Championship Game, in which the Patriots defeated the Indianapolis Colts 24–14. Eight days earlier the Patriots hosted the coldest game (4 °F, −12 °F wind chill) in New England Patriots history in the AFC Divisional Playoff game when the Patriots defeated the Tennessee Titans, 17–14.[39] Gillette Stadium also hosted the 2007 AFC Championship Game, with the Patriots defeating the San Diego Chargers, 21–12.

text: On January 10, 2010, the Baltimore Ravens beat the Patriots 33–14 here giving the Patriots their first home loss in the playoffs in Gillette Stadium. The Patriots suffered their second home playoff loss on January 16, 2011 in a 28–21 New York Jets victory. During the 2012 NFL playoffs, the Patriots defeated the Denver Broncos, 45–10, and again hosted the AFC Championship, where they won against the Baltimore Ravens, 23–20. The following year, they again hosted the AFC Championship game, where they lost 28–13 to the Baltimore Ravens. During the 2015 NFL playoffs, the Patriots avenged their previous defeat by the Baltimore Ravens by edging the Ravens 35-31. They then defeated the Indianapolis Colts, 45-7 in the AFC Championship. The stadium hosted its sixth AFC Championship game during the 2016 playoffs, as the Patriots defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers 36–17. In all, the Patriots are 16–3 at Gillette Stadium in the playoffs.

text: College football

text: As part of the UMass football program's move to Division I FBS, the Minutemen played all of their home games at Gillette Stadium for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. The stadium is 95 miles away from the UMass campus in Amherst—the longest trip of any FBS member. The Minutemen's on-campus stadium, Warren McGuirk Alumni Stadium, was not suitable for FBS football in its previous configuration. Its small size (17,000 seats) would have made it prohibitively difficult to meet FBS average attendance requirements, and its press box and replay facilities were well below Mid-American Conference standards. Additionally, several nonconference teams would not even consider playing games in Amherst. McGuirk Stadium was renovated to FBS standards for the 2014 season, but the Minutemen's current deal with the Kraft Group calls for the Minutemen to play four of their home games in Foxborough from 2014 to 2016 in exchange for keeping part of the revenue from ticket sales.[40][41] Moving forward, Gillette will continue to host UMass football with those games of anticipated larger attendance.

text: Hockey

text: Gillette Stadium also hosted the eighth edition of the NHL Winter Classic, between the Boston Bruins and Montreal Canadiens, on January 1, 2016.[42]

text: Notable soccer games

text: Memorable Major League Soccer playoff victories include wins over the Chicago Fire in the 2005 and 2007 Eastern Conference Final, sending the Revs to the MLS Cup. Additionally, the venue hosted MLS Cup 2002, four games of the 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup, and some Copa America Centenario matches in 2016.

text: International soccer matches

text:
Date
Winning Team
Result
Losing Team
Tournament
Spectators

September 27, 2003
 Norway
7–1
 South Korea
2003 FIFA Women's World Cup First Round
14,356

 Canada
3–1
 Japan

October 1, 2003
 United States
1–0
 Norway
2003 FIFA Women's World Cup Quarterfinals
25,103

 Sweden
2–1
 Brazil

June 10, 2016
 Chile
2–1
 Bolivia
Copa América Centenario Group D
19,392

June 12, 2016
 Peru
1–0
 Brazil
Copa América Centenario Group B
36,187

June 18, 2016
 Argentina
4–1
 Venezuela
Copa América Centenario Quarterfinal
59,183

text: Concerts

text:
Date
Artist
Opening act(s)
Tour / Concert name
Attendance
Gross
Notes

September 5, 2002
The Rolling Stones
The Pretenders
The Licks Tour
—
—

July 6, 2003
Metallica
Limp Bizkit
LINKIN PARK
Deftones
Mudvayne
The Summer Sanitarium Tour
42,898 / 48,600
$3,217,350

August 1, 2003
Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band
—
The Rising Tour
96,108 / 98,559
$7,107,215

August 2, 2003

July 24, 2004
Toby Keith
Montgomery Gentry
Jo Dee Messina
Gretchen Wilson
Scotty Emerick
Don Campbell Band
The Big Throwdown Tour
39,717 / 41,354
$2,850,279

July 23, 2005
Kenny Chesney
Keith Urban
Gretchen Wilson
Uncle Kracker
Pat Green
The Somewhere in the Sun Tour
50,860 / 50,860
$3,263,448

September 3, 2005
Green Day
Jimmy Eat World
Against Me!
The American Idiot Tour
26,781 / 43,615
$1,006,421

July 16, 2006
Kenny Chesney
Dierks Bentley
Big & Rich
Carrie Underwood
Gretchen Wilson
The Road and The Radio Tour
55,124 / 55,124
$4,136,945

July 27, 2006
Bon Jovi
Nickelback
The Have a Nice Day Tour
45,874 / 45,874
$3,384,804

September 20, 2006
The Rolling Stones
Kanye West
A Bigger Bang Tour
44,115 / 45,285
$4,042,193

July 28, 2007
Kenny Chesney
Brooks & Dunn
Sugarland
Sara Evans
Pat Green
The Flip-Flop Summer Tour
56,926 / 56,926
$4,496,363

July 26, 2008
Kenny Chesney
Keith Urban
LeAnn Rimes
Gary Allan
Sammy Hagar
The Poets and Pirates Tour
57,394 / 57,394
$5,274,364

July 18, 2009
Elton John
Billy Joel
—
Face to Face 2009
52,007 / 52,007
$6,209,342

July 28, 2009
AC/DC
Anvil
The Black Ice World Tour
—
—

August 15, 2009
Kenny Chesney
Sugarland
Montgomery Gentry
Miranda Lambert
Lady Antebellum
The Sun City Carnival Tour
57,890 / 57,890
$5,041,001

September 20, 2009
U2
Snow Patrol
The U2 360° Tour
138,805 / 138,805
$12,859,778

September 21, 2009

June 5, 2010
Taylor Swift
Kellie Pickler
Gloriana
Justin Bieber
The Fearless Tour
56,868 / 56,868
$3,726,157
Swift became the first woman to headline the stadium.[43]

June 13, 2010
Eagles
Dixie Chicks
Keith Urban
The Long Road Out of Eden Tour
26,433 / 41,582
$2,822,410

July 24, 2010
Bon Jovi
Kid Rock
The Circle Tour
51,138 / 51,138
$4,418,585

August 21, 2010
Brad Paisley
Jason Aldean
Darius Rucker
Sara Evans
Easton Corbin
The H2O Tour
51,107 / 51,107
$3,476,779

June 25, 2011
Taylor Swift
Needtobreathe
Randy Montana
James Wesley
The Speak Now World Tour
110,800 / 110,800
$8,026,350

June 26, 2011

August 26, 2011
Kenny Chesney
Zac Brown Band
Billy Currington
Uncle Kracker
The Goin' Coastal Tour
106,755 / 106,755
$9,228,920

August 27, 2011

August 18, 2012
Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band
—
The Wrecking Ball World Tour
49,621 / 50,000
$4,548,896

August 24, 2012
Kenny Chesney
Tim McGraw
Grace Potter and the Nocturnals
Jake Owen
The Brothers of the Sun Tour
111,209 / 111,209
$9,926,110

August 25, 2012

July 20, 2013
Bon Jovi
The J. Geils Band
The Because We Can Tour
45,912 / 45,912
$3,514,571

July 26, 2013
Taylor Swift
Ed Sheeran
Austin Mahone
Joel Crouse
The Red Tour
110,712 / 110,712
$9,464,063
At the first show, Carly Simon was the special guest.[44]

July 27, 2013

August 23, 2013
Kenny Chesney
Eric Church
Eli Young Band
Kacey Musgraves
The No Shoes Nation Tour
109,207 / 109,207
$9,465,256

August 24, 2013

May 31, 2014
George Strait
Tim McGraw
Faith Hill
Cassadee Pope
The Cowboy Rides Away Tour
55,863 / 55,863
$5,005,789

June 15, 2014
Iggy Azalea
—
The New Classic Tour
—
—
This concert was part of 103.3 AMP Radio Birthday Bash[45]

July 1, 2014
Beyoncé
Jay-Z
—
The On the Run Tour
52,802 / 52,802
$5,738,114
Jay-Z became the first rapper to headline the stadium.[46]

August 7, 2014
One Direction
5 Seconds of Summer
The Where We Are Tour
148,251 / 148,251
$13,475,239

August 8, 2014

August 9, 2014

August 10, 2014
Luke Bryan
Dierks Bentley
Lee Brice
Cole Swindell
The That's My Kind of Night Tour
56,048 / 56,048
$4,349,568

July 24, 2015
Taylor Swift
Vance Joy
Shawn Mendes
Haim
The 1989 World Tour
116,849 / 116,849
$12,533,166
Walk the Moon was the special guest.[47]

July 25, 2015
MKTO was the special guest.[48]

August 22, 2015
AC/DC
Vintage Trouble
Rock or Bust World Tour
48,000 / 50,000
—

August 28, 2015
Kenny Chesney
Jason Aldean
Brantley Gilbert
Cole Swindell
Old Dominion
The Big Revival Tour
The Burn It Down Tour
120,206 / 120,206
$11,624,917

August 29, 2015

September 12, 2015
One Direction
Icona Pop
The On the Road Again Tour
48,167 / 48,167
$4,493,993
Liam Payne and Niall Horan, respectively, made a cover of "22" by Taylor Swift, because of the 22nd birthday of both.

September 25, 2015
Ed Sheeran
Passenger
Christina Perri
The x Tour
51,996 / 54,000
$3,234,377

June 3, 2016
Beyoncé
DJ Khaled
The Formation World Tour
48,304 / 48,304
$6,008,698

July 15, 2016
Luke Bryan
Little Big Town
Chris Stapleton
Dustin Lynch
The Kill the Lights Tour
76,450 / 87,871
$7,511,536

July 16, 2016

July 19, 2016
Guns N' Roses
Lenny Kravitz
The Not In This Lifetime... Tour
65,472 / 71,099
$8,302,575

July 20, 2016

July 30, 2016
Coldplay
Alessia Cara
Foxes
A Head Full of Dreams Tour
54,952 / 54,952
$6,530,260

August 26, 2016
Kenny Chesney
Miranda Lambert
Sam Hunt
Old Dominion
The Spread the Love Tour
121,399 / 121,399
$11,455,368

August 27, 2016

September 14, 2016
Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band
—
The River Tour
48,324 / 51,664
$5,439,521

May 19, 2017
Metallica
Volbeat
Mix Master Mike
The WorldWired Tour
47,778 / 48,905
$6,095,723

June 25, 2017
U2
The Lumineers
The Joshua Tree Tour 2017
55,231 / 55,231
$6,881,340

August 4, 2017
Coldplay
AlunaGeorge
Izzy Bizu
A Head Full of Dreams Tour
52,188 / 52,188
$6,263,906

August 25, 2017
Kenny Chesney
Thomas Rhett
Old Dominion
Midland
The No Shoes Nation Tour 2017
121,642 / 121,642
$12,095,688

August 26, 2017

July 26, 2018
Taylor Swift
Camila Cabello
Charli XCX
Taylor Swift's Reputation Stadium Tour
TBA
TBA

July 27, 2018

July 28, 2018

August 5, 2018
Beyoncé & Jay-Z
—
On The Run II Tour
TBA
TBA

August 24, 2018
Kenny Chesney
Dierks Bentley
Brothers Osborne
Brandon Lay
The Trip Around The Sun Tour
TBA
TBA

August 25, 2018

September 15, 2018
Ed Sheeran
TBA
÷ Tour
TBA
TBA

text: Other events

text: Gillette Stadium hosted the NCAA Men's Lacrosse Championships in 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2017.

text: The AMA Supercross Championship has been racing at Gillette Stadium since 2016.[citation needed]

text: Monster Jam has been coming to the stadium since 2014.

text: Playing surface

text: On November 14, 2006, two days after a rainstorm contributed to the deterioration of the grass surface in a Patriots game against the Jets, team management decided to replace the natural grass surface with a synthetic surface, FieldTurf. The Patriots' first game on the surface was a victory over the previously 9–1 Chicago Bears on November 26. At the conclusion of the 2007 season, Patriots quarterback Tom Brady had a career record of 31–3 on artificial turf. The team lost a preseason matchup in August 2007 to the Tennessee Titans on the new FieldTurf but otherwise won its first eleven regular-season and playoff games on the surface covering the period of November 2006 until September 2008, when the Patriots lost to the Miami Dolphins.

text: In February 2010, the surface was pulled and upgraded to FieldTurf "Duraspine Pro", which was expected to meet FIFA standards that the previous turf did not, preventing the team from having to place sod on top of their turf to host international soccer matches.[49]

text: The surface was upgraded again in April 2014 to FieldTurf "Revolution" with "VersaTile" drainage system. The FieldTurf Revolution product is currently used at many venues across North America, including CenturyLink Field (home to the NFL's Seattle Seahawks and MLS's Seattle Sounders) and Providence Park, home of the MLS's Portland Timbers, where its installation was recently completed.[50]

text: Field logo

text: When the field is configured for American football, the Patriots have their "Flying Elvis" logo painted on the field at dead center of the 50-yard line. Off to both sides along the 50-yard line, the Gillette Stadium logo is also painted on the field. This is a gray-and-yellow stylized representation of the bridge and tower at the north entrance of the stadium.

text: Patriot Place

text: In 2006, the Patriots and Kraft announced plans to build a "super regional lifestyle and entertainment center" in the area around Gillette Stadium named Patriot Place.[51][52] The cost of the project was $350 million, more than the cost to build Gillette Stadium itself; Kraft had purchased much of the surrounding land, about 700 acres (280 ha), when he bought Foxboro Stadium in the late 1980s.[53]

text: The first phase of the project opened in fall of 2007,[54] and featured the first Bass Pro Shops in New England, as well as Circuit City (now closed), Bed Bath & Beyond, Five Guys Burgers, Christmas Tree Shops, and Staples.[53] In December 2007, the Patriots and CBS announced plans to build a themed restaurant and nightclub, named "CBS Scene", at the site, which would also include studios for CBS-owned WBZ-TV.[55] The restaurant was part of the second phase of the project, which included an open mall, a health center, a Cinema de Lux movie theater, a four-star Renaissance hotel, and "The Hall at Patriot Place." Attached to Gillette Stadium, the Hall includes a two-level interactive museum honoring the Patriots accomplishments and Super Bowl championships, plus the Patriots Pro Shop.[56] The first restaurants and stores in phase two began opening in July 2008, and were followed by the openings of the Hall at Patriot Place and the CBS Scene in time for the beginning of the 2008 New England Patriots season. More locations, including the health center and hotel, opened in 2009, along with additional sites in phase one.