BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY

A breach of agreement of marriage features the existence of marriage under the Matrimonial Causes Act or the Islamic law, customary law and refusal of the promisor to keep the agreement.

An agreement to enter into marriage should leave no body in doubt as to the real intention of the partner, so where there is a contrary intention to what is portrayed by either of the parties, the law will not fold its arm and allow anyone’s emotion to be toyed with neither will it allow a precious time wasted.

Note that where the ethos of the society, proposal is customarily by a particular sex and incidence of betrothal affiance are normally presumed to emanate from another person, the offer and acceptance thereof could regulate the existence of the promise of marriage. This is the difference from mere convivial or romantic relationship without more. The absence of writing of a promise of marriage, save in a case of a promise to marriage under the matrimonial causes Act and to some extent under Islamic law might not in all instances militate as the only conclusive manner of demonstrating promise of marriage.

The cultural or customary incidences may be of demonstrative value .In EZENNAH V. ATTAH it was found that no evidence of cultural move to see the parent of the appellant in respect of prospect of marriage.

In LEEK V. COOK (1935) it was held that breach of promise to marry may be by conduct such as one of the parties thereto marrying another or by express refusal of a request for performance of the promise, the communication of a refusal may be through a third party as where the defendant affirmed that he was certainly not going to marry the plaintiff through her father.

Incapacity to enter such contract of promise of marriage is also actionable where a promisor has a subsisting marriage SHAW V. SHAW (1954) 2 QB. Consanguity would also render a promise of marriage between a man and woman, the man may maintain an action against a woman for breach of promise to marry, the promise must be fulfilled within a reasonable time. HARRISON V. CAGE   this cause applies to man and woman upon mutual exchange of promise.

A marriage promise might be proved even though it be a verbal promise , this was the decision of the court in CORK V. BAKER(1717)1 STRA 34;93 ER 367. There is also nothing wrong in making the promise conditional .i.e. upon the fulfillment of the condition, the right of action would lie .COLE V.COTTINGHAM.

In ESISI V. SHOKEFUN (1979)5 CA 262 where there was  found a promise of marriage on a thorough assessment of documentary evidence and acceptance of paternity damages were awarded.

A party to the promise of marriage cannot plead likely unhappiness of the marriage because a party has fallen out of law with the other, loss of affection would in any event go in mitigation of damages for the breach. ROBERTSON V. CRAVEN 1898.

Disapproval of the family of a party to the promise of the other party is not a defense for breach of promise of marriage.

IRVING V. GREENWOOD where the mother of a party disapprove the marriage on the ground that the other party is a prostitute, it was held not to be a sufficient ground to breach promise of marriage.

However, unchasity of a party to the promise of marriage would found a defence for the other party to withdraw from the promise. BENCH V. MERRICK but this defense was accepted only if the unchasity was unknown or concealed from the plaintiff at the time of the promise. YOUNG V.MURPHY(1836)3 BING NC 54 132 ER 329

Physical or mental illness is also not a defence for breach of promise of marrage. HALL V. WRIGHTS (1859)1 EI

The engagement to man is not merely…………. A spiritual matter and this action is not to compel…… manage upon contract ,but to recover damages for not doing it and here is a temporal loss and therefore temporal loss and therefore temporal action doth lie.BAKER V. SMITH (1651)STY 82 ER.

I have said my own ‘lol’

Thank you for your time always.

Oyenike Alliyu-Adebiyi LLB(hons)BL