Our hearts suffer a serious amount of irreversible damage, but we accept it as part of life and character building. But, receiving physical damage is hardly acceptable in much of North American society. We have rules, laws, and guidelines to prevent physical pain and suffering. But, the only governing body that will protect your heart is yourself.

Heartbreak makes us tough. It makes us grow. Yes, it makes us tough to love, and it makes us grow impatient and cynical. Heartbreak becomes a cycle of abuse, but who is responsible?

Why is it that once a marriage contract is signed, that the signing parties can find restitution in the fact that 50% of everything is entitled to both parties? Supposedly, this should help people to think with their heads and not just their hearts before engaging in a serious relationship. However, outside of "marriage" we seem to believe that our circumstances, our hearts, our lives, are somehow less affected by the principles of disaster.

Why shouldn't "dating" be a contract? Why shouldn't ANY relationship be a contract? Is it not important to define the terms of any relationship prior to agreeing to the commitment? If two parties do not have a mutual understanding of the rules of the engagement, can a true relationship really exist at all?

This lack of proper communication and negotiation is the source of damage in a relationship. The lack of seriousness, and the lack of thought are damaging. It is about time that standards are set.

Love isn't like business. Love IS business. We are all professional lovers, and we are designed to love. But, as professionals, we have a duty of care owed to those whom we love.

If an accountant prepares a financial statement that is relied upon by clients for investment purposes, then the accountant is liable for negligence and false representation. It is the same for lawyers, real estate agents, and any other professional that provides service or advice in his area of expertise.

If we, as professional lovers, neglect or falsely represent emotion, communication, etc. are we not liable for our actions? Have we not breached the duty of care owed to those whom we "love"?

We are liable. But, the other party may also be partly liable. The fact is that love is dangerous, and damage is inevitable. Both parties should understand the potential for damage on either end.

However, in signing the "waver" of love doesn't give the other party the right to be negligent or fraudulent. What remedies are there for those who have suffered damages of the heart?

What if we were responsible for returning someone's heart to its original condition, by paying for the cost of therapy?

What if we were order specific performance to find a "best replacement" partner for our ex-lovers?

And, of course, there are always monetary reparations.

This idea, however absurd, does make an important point. The reason that laws are formed is because we do not have the maturity as human beings to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions. Helmet and seatbelt laws had to be enforced because apparently we were not interested in protecting our lives.

Are our hearts any less fragile? Matters of the heart fall within the "brittle skull" theory. We don't know how strong someone's heart is until we damage it, but that shouldn't make us any less liable for the damage that we cause.

The point is not to create ridiculous laws; we should take our actions more seriously so that we don't have to.

Relationships should not be taken so lightly since they affect our most vulnerable and most valuable assetsour hearts.

Learn more about this author, Joseph Liau.
Click here to send author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Are we responsible for the heartbreak of others??
We want to hear your view. Write now!