Also known as: promises to marry · promised to marry · promising to marry · breach of promise to marry · breach of promise
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
An agreement in which marriage or a promise to marry supplies all or part of the consideration. Such an agreement falls within the Statute of Frauds and is unenforceable without a signed writing, except when the agreement consists solely of mutual promises by two persons to marry each other.
An agreement in which marriage or a promise to marry supplies all or part of the consideration. Such an agreement falls within the Statute of Frauds and is unenforceable without a signed writing, except when the agreement consists solely of mutual promises by two persons to marry each other.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A cause of action seeking damages for breach of an agreement to marry. Where retained after statutory abolition in most states, the action permits recovery of actual expenditures made in preparation for marriage as well as compensation for loss of reputation, mental anguish, and injury to health, but not for loss of expected financial or social benefits.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A cause of action seeking damages for breach of an agreement to marry. Where retained after statutory abolition in most states, the action permits recovery of actual expenditures made in preparation for marriage as well as compensation for loss of reputation, mental anguish, and injury to health, but not for loss of expected financial or social benefits.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Dean Laura Chen offered Dr. Min Kim a tenure-track position with research funding if Dr. Kim married the dean's brother David. Dr. Kim married David in reliance on the oral promise, but the university never created the position. Dr. Kim sues to enforce the promise. Because the marriage supplied the consideration for the dean's promise, the agreement falls within the Statute of Frauds and is unenforceable without a signed writing.
Patrick Phan promised Priscilla Parks he would marry her on a future date and would transfer company shares upon the wedding. Before that date Patrick married another person. Priscilla sues for breach. The prior marriage constitutes an anticipatory breach of the promise to marry, allowing Priscilla to sue immediately rather than wait for the scheduled wedding date.
Piper Patel and Pearl Porter orally agreed that if Piper married Pearl's son, Pearl would transfer title to an apartment building. Piper married the son, but Pearl refused to convey the building. Piper sues for specific performance. Because the promise to transfer property was given in consideration of marriage, the agreement is unenforceable without a signed writing.
Peak Performance promised to host an exclusive wedding venue for Patrick Phan and Priscilla Parks on a specific date after they agreed to marry. Before the date the venue was destroyed by fire without fault of either party. Patrick and Priscilla sue for breach of the promise to marry and related venue services. Performance is excused because the destruction of the essential subject matter made the contract impossible.
No. When marriage or a promise to marry supplies the consideration for another promise, such as a promise of property or employment, the agreement remains within the Statute of Frauds and requires a signed writing regardless of whether the marriage has occurred.
Supporting sources
No. The sole exception to the writing requirement for promises made in consideration of marriage is an agreement consisting only of mutual promises by two persons to marry each other. Any additional promise of property or other benefit falls within the Statute of Frauds.
Supporting sources
Drew and Thomas became engaged and signed a written agreement addressing equity division if the marriage ended. After the engagement ended by mutual agreement, Thomas sued for breach of promise to marry, seeking damages for career sacrifices and relocation expenses. Because actions for breach of promise to marry have been abolished in most states and the facts show no malice, Thomas cannot recover for loss of expected benefits from the marriage.
Paul Peterson and Phoebe Park entered a ceremonial marriage after an oral agreement that included property transfers. When Paul later sought to dissolve the marriage through legislative action rather than judicial divorce, Phoebe challenged the dissolution. The court held that marriage is not merely a contract but a status regulated by the sovereign, so the legislative dissolution was valid.
Recovery is limited to actual damages such as expenditures made in preparation for marriage, loss of reputation, mental anguish, and injury to health. Recovery is not permitted for loss of expected benefits such as social or financial position, though punitive damages may be available if the defendant acted maliciously.
Supporting sources
…of the contract is barred by Civil Code section 43.5, subdivision (d), which provides that "No cause of action arises for ... breach of promise of marriage." This rather strained contention proceeds from the premise that a promise of marriage impliedly includes a promise to support and to pool property acquired after marriage (see…