You are on page 1of 4

Breach of Marriage Contract

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.

Generally, in many jurisdictions, oral agreements especially without evidence or witness is

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

is a need to have at least two disinterested witnesses to prove engagement.

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

punitive damages would be awarded.


Even in the lack of evidence and oral agreement, a person can successfully bring a

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

the person at fault in terminating the promise to marry.

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

property or money transferred in reliance on a false and fraudulent representation of intention

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

marriage occurring, the giver can get them back.

Therefore, a person can successfully bring a breach of marriage contract action by

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

because there is normally no witness in oral agreements.


Reference

Lundmark, T. (2012). Charting the divide between common and civil law. New York: Oxford

University Press.

You might also like