Also known as: promises in consideration of marriage · consideration of marriage · marriage consideration promise
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A contractual promise for which marriage or a promise to marry supplies the consideration. The promise falls within the statute of frauds and is unenforceable absent a writing signed by the party to be charged.
Lena orally promised Mark a 10 percent equity stake in her startup if he married her daughter. Mark married the daughter in reliance on the promise. When Lena refused to transfer the stake, Mark sued. The court held the promise unenforceable because it lacked a signed writing.
Damian orally promised Taylor immediate tenure and research funding if she married alumnus Ross and encouraged his donation. Taylor married Ross and facilitated the gift. When the college refused the benefits, Taylor sued. The court dismissed the claim for lack of a signed writing evidencing the marriage-based bargain.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
No. Marriage is the very act that triggers the marriage provision. Courts hold that completing the marriage does not satisfy the writing requirement or create an exception.
Supporting sources
No. When marriage supplies the bargained-for consideration, the statute applies regardless of how the parties describe the promised benefit.
Supporting sources
No. The marriage provision governs whenever marriage is the consideration, even if the promise could theoretically be performed within a year.
Supporting sources
No. The provision reaches any promise, including those made by third parties such as parents or employers, when marriage supplies the consideration.
Supporting sources
…2 Show. 16, ruled that the statute should be applied prospectively. The Helmore case involved an attempt to enforce an oral promise in consideration of marriage made prior to enactment of the statute. Ibid. The King’s Bench concluded that “the intention of the makers of that statute was only to prevent for the future.” Ibid. That court stated that…