concluded that after the discovery of 20 additional financial companies to which the agreement did not refer, the investment presented a substantial modification to the document signed by the wife. He concluded that the evidence showed that the spouse believed that the agreement should exclude only the property described in one schedule of the agreement and no other, and his lawyer gave advice to that effect. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a valid, enforceable and effective agreement between the parties. It was therefore not a financial agreement since, by definition, Article 90B requires that the document be an agreement. If the requirements of Article 90G(1)(b), (c) and (ca) are not met, a financial agreement may still be binding if a court is satisfied that it would be unfair and cheap for the agreement not to be binding on the parties (taking into account their circumstances at the time the agreement was entered into) and the Tribunal declares: that the agreement is binding. (c) a court is satisfied that it would be unfair and unjust for the agreement not to bind the parties to the agreement (without prejudice to any change in circumstances from the date of conclusion of the agreement); and a financial agreement binds the contracting parties if and only if: Although each party must receive legal advice, it is no longer mandatory for a financial agreement to include declarations. . . .