Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The breach of promise also known as breach of contract to marry has been abolished in
many jurisdictions. Traditionally, the promise to marry a woman through engagement was
considered to be a legally binding contract and if the man later changed his mind regarding
this promise, they would be subject to litigation for damages to the woman. There are several
ways of looking at the breach of contract to marry where a person can successfully bring a
breach of contract action by alleging monetary loss for rings and gifts in oral agreements.
non-actionable. Even traditionally when promise to marry was actionable, the determination
of what constitutes a promise to marry and the evidence to support it was not satisfactory and
a lot of the decision is left for the jury to determine. Some cases have even gone ahead to use
sexual relations between the parties as admissible to prove engagement. In some states, there
More than four decades ago, fourteen states in the United States abolished the breach of
promise because the power to award damages by the jury in the past had been seen by many
commentators as excessive. Another reason that abolished this breach of promise was not
supported by the public especially because of the high damages if the action went to trial and
the defendant would feel blackmailed into settling out of court because of lack of proper ways
to determine innocence. Even though the abolition was challenged by many states because
they argued it denied victims a legal remedy for the injuries, damages and reputation, some
states like Illinois limited the action to a period of one years and gave possibility that no
breach of marriage contract to retrieve monetary value of rings and gifts given in the promise
of marriage between parties but the award of damage depends on the decision by the jury. The
California Civic Code 1590 states that “Where either party to a contemplated marriage in this
State makes a gift of money or property to the other on the basis or assumption that the
marriage will take place, in the event that the donee refuses to enter into the marriage as
contemplated or that it is given up by mutual consent, the donor may recover such gift or such
part of its value as may, under all the circumstances of the case, be found by a court or jury to
be just” (Lundmark, 2012, pg, 276). This is to show that the burden of determining the right
amount of value to be awarded remains with the court or the jury. Similarly, in Louisiana,
every donation made in favor of marriage is annulled if the marriage does not take place
which makes the recovered of things like rings, gifts and money can be retrieved regardless of
For instance, the case MacDermid, Inc v. Leonetti in the Superior Court of Waterbury
using the Supreme Court in Pissininni v. Hajus which permitted action for restitution of
to marry. The state then prohibited an action of alienation of affections or for breach of
promise to marry. The No Fault approach is where in the modern trend, once the engagement
is broke, the ring should be returned to the giver regardless of who is at fault for breaking the
engagement. The claimant may argue that whoever is at fault is responsible for paying
damages but this precedent was thrown out due to the immense process of trying to determine
the person at fault. Therefore, it is important to follow this approach which states that there is
still need for the things of monetary value to be returned in the event of breach of contract.
Set in the precedence of Jerod Heiman v Heather L. Parrish, the court decided on the
issue of returning the engagement ring since the marriage did not occur. The court decided
that the plaintiff who had purchased the engagement ring and given it to the defendant in
contemplation of marriage between the parties and even though the plaintiff is the one who
ended the relationship, neither party to the case could not stipulate whose fault it was to end
the engagement. Appeals were and are still made that the engagement ring should be
classified the same as other inter vivos gift where once given and accepted, should not be
revoked. However, the law looks at the engagement ring and other gifts given in the precept
of the marriage as not merely gifts but commitment to marriage where in the absence of the
alleging monetary loss for sings and gifts in an alleged oral agreement because first of all,
engagements are made orally and there is no need for proof of engagement but the word for
the parties and secondly, because there is no way of proving who is at fault using the no fault
strategy. The recovery of things of monetary value including the time for the defendant for
being together with the plaintiff and the progress they have made together if they were
cohabiting is possible. This even goes further to damages for emotional damages especially
when a person seduces the other under the promise to get marriage. It is clear though that the
challenge is in determining the extent of loss in this case and proof for the promise to marry
Lundmark, T. (2012). Charting the divide between common and civil law. New York: Oxford
University Press.