Most jurisdictions, at least in the English-speaking, common law world, have become increasingly reluctant to intervene in cases of personal relationships not involving the welfare of children or actual violence. The converse of this was seldom true the concept that "it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind" had at least some basis in law (though a woman might pay a high social price for exercising this privilege, as explained below)-and unless an actual dowry of money or property had changed hands or the woman could be shown to have become engaged to a man only to be able to use large amounts of his money, a man was only rarely able to recover in a "breach of promise" suit against a woman, were he even allowed to file one.Ĭhanging social attitudes toward morals have led to the decline of this sort of action. If the man were to subsequently change his mind, he would be said to be in "breach" of this promise and subject to litigation for damages. It was also called breach of contract to marry, and the remedy awarded was known as heart balm.įrom at least the Middle Ages until the early 20th century, a man's promise of engagement to marry a woman was considered, in many jurisdictions, a legally binding contract.
0 kommentar(er)
