Relationship breakdown - deposit for wedding

unholyangel

pphillips wrote: »

Not sure why this post is still going on when the OP has not come back.

The OP's son simply needs to defend the claim on the basis that it does not disclose a valid cause of action because:
A. There was no contract between the groom and the father of the bride, and
B. Even if there was a contract between the groom and the father of the bride, that contract is unenforceable at law as it falls within section 1 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970.

(1)An agreement between two persons to marry one another shall not under the law of England and Wales have effect as a contract giving rise to legal rights and no action shall lie in England and Wales for breach of such an agreement, whatever the law applicable to the agreement.

Unless the father & son are marrying each other, I can't see how section 1 is remotely relevant.

It only relates to the promise to marry itself between the betrothed.

pphillips

unholyangel wrote: »

Unless the father & son are marrying each other, I can't see how section 1 is remotely relevant.

It only relates to the promise to marry itself between the betrothed.

What you are saying is that the parents of the bride or groom can sue but the bride or groom cannot, I do not think your interpretation of section 1 is correct.

If the parents can sue then this would have been specified in the Act, but it isn't, I therefore understand section 1 to be of universal application.

unholyangel

pphillips wrote: »

What you are saying is that the parents of the bride or groom can sue but the bride or groom cannot, I do not think your interpretation of section 1 is correct.

I cannot see the point of the Act if the parents can sue but the bride or groom cannot, I therefore understand section 1 to be of universal application.

You misunderstand. The bride could potentially sue - just not for the breach of promise to marry. In other words, there is no legal obligation created to marry someone when you propose to them. It does not render all other agreements made during the course of that relationship as null and void.

ETA: It purely relates to (as stated in the act) an agreement to marry. An agreement to pay for something is not an agreement to marry iyswim?

pphillips

unholyangel wrote: »

You misunderstand. The bride could potentially sue - just not for the breach of promise to marry. In other words, there is no legal obligation created to marry someone when you propose to them. It does not render all other agreements made during the course of that relationship as null and void.

ETA: It purely relates to (as stated in the act) an agreement to marry. An agreement to pay for something is not an agreement to marry iyswim?

The bride is prevented from suing at all in relation to the broken engagement, she can only sue under section 2 or 3 for property which she has, or has given to the groom, or has a beneficial interest in. I also think your missing the point that the action against the OP's son would never have arisen if the wedding had gone ahead.

LilElvis

DavidP24 wrote: »

I totally agree.

The thread is only ongoing because you resurrected it.

unholyangel

pphillips wrote: »

The bride is prevented from suing at all in relation to the broken engagement, she can only sue under section 2 or 3 for property which she has, or has given to the groom, or has a beneficial interest in. I also think your missing the point that the action against the OP's son would never have arisen if the wedding had gone ahead.

Perhaps this paragraph of the law commissions report may clear it up for you:

46. The property in dispute may have been a gift from a third party, or may
otherwise involve a third party. In this Report we are concerned only with
questions between the parties to the engagement and we do not propose to enter
into any discussion of the rights of third parties. Their position, whether as
donors seeking to recover a conditional gift or otherwise, will not be affected
by our recommendations on substantive law or procedure. Where a third party
is concerned in a dispute, the summary procedure would not, in our view, be appropriate. The law relating to the recovery of conditional gifts and the
position of third parties in this connection is, like the whole field of law
concerning unjust enrichment, far from clear. This difficult subject cannot be
dealt with in the present context of Breach of Promise.

As I said, section 1 isn't even remotely relevant unless the father was marrying the groom.

Read section 1 carefully.

(1)An agreement between two persons to marry one another shall not under the law of England and Wales have effect as a contract giving rise to legal rights and no action shall lie in England and Wales for breach of such an agreement, whatever the law applicable to the agreement.

It simply means that no special legal rights arise from breach of promise to marry as a legally binding contract does not exist for it - it does not stop you from bringing an action for any other legal rights you might have in law.

pphillips

Thanks for the info but this mentions nothing about wedding expenses, What you have posted could arguable be referring to something like wedding presents, which may come under the doctrine of unjust enrichment as an example of an acquired benefit that was given on the implied condition that marriage took place. But if the wedding is the gift and the wedding never takes place then there has been no unjust enrichment as no one has acquired any benefit, Therefore the wedding is a loss that cannot be recovered, except under a valid insurance policy. The cost of a wedding, which it is agreed becomes payable as a consequence of the relationship breaking down can only fall within section 1 no matter who incurred the expense.

unholyangel

pphillips wrote: »

Thanks for the info but this mentions nothing about wedding expenses, What you have posted could arguable be referring to something like wedding presents, which may come under the doctrine of unjust enrichment as an example of an acquired benefit that was given on the implied condition that marriage took place. But if the wedding never takes place then there has been no unjust enrichment as no one has acquired any benefit, Therefore the wedding is a loss that cannot be recovered, except under a valid insurance policy. The cost of a wedding, which it is agreed becomes payable as a consequence of the relationship breaking down can only fall within section 1 no matter who incurred the expense.

Section 1 means you can't claim damages for them failing to marry you - ie for distress, heartache, damage to your reputation. That is because there is no contract created by making such a promise. However, where there is a contract (ETA: a contract for anything other than the promise to marry), section 1 does not bar you from making that claim. Not really sure how else to put it.


Say for instance the father paid the deposits as a engagement/wedding gift, or perhaps loaned them the money on the agreement it would be repaid....the father does not lose his rights merely because the wedding didn't happen (in fact in the case of the former, he only really has a right to reclaim if the wedding doesn't happen).

The fact that the deposits were for wedding related transactions imo makes it incredibly hard for the son to argue they were an unconditional gift (if there was no agreement to pay it back - bearing in mind OP used the choice phrase "no written agreement").

Plus, as I said about the law commissions report, that makes it clear that the breach of promise does not impact on the right of third parties as that has a whole field of law of its own. The legislation you refer to only ever has relevance between the betrothed. So discussing what the bride can/cant do is one thing, but it has no bearing on the rights of her father - who was a third party.

pphillips

unholyangel wrote: »

Section 1 means you can't claim damages for them failing to marry you - ie for distress, heartache, damage to your reputation. That is because there is no contract created by making such a promise. However, where there is a contract (ETA: a contract for anything other than the promise to marry), section 1 does not bar you from making that claim. Not really sure how else to put it.


Say for instance the father paid the deposits as a engagement/wedding gift, or perhaps loaned them the money on the agreement it would be repaid....the father does not lose his rights merely because the wedding didn't happen (in fact in the case of the former, he only really has a right to reclaim if the wedding doesn't happen).

The fact that the deposits were for wedding related transactions imo makes it incredibly hard for the son to argue they were an unconditional gift (if there was no agreement to pay it back - bearing in mind OP used the choice phrase "no written agreement").

Plus, as I said about the law commissions report, that makes it clear that the breach of promise does not impact on the right of third parties as that has a whole field of law of its own. The legislation you refer to only ever has relevance between the betrothed. So discussing what the bride can/cant do is one thing, but it has no bearing on the rights of her father - who was a third party.

If you look over the old breach of promise case law the main damages awarded were for distress, heartache, psychological damage and loss of chance but awards were also made for expenses like the wedding dress and other things that were paid for in anticipation of marriage. All these claims are no longer permitted under section 1, I do not think a bride can now say to her father that he should pay these expenses for her as she is prevented from making a claim if the relationship breaks down but he is not. Yes I accept that everyone still has other legal rights under contract and restitution, I will not go into the details of these here other than to say I think you misunderstand how they work. In my thinking if the father sues the groom for the cost of the wedding because the relationship broke down and the wedding is cancelled then this is a prima facia breach of promise lawsuit.

unholyangel

pphillips wrote: »

If you look over the old breach of promise case law the main damages awarded were for distress, heartache, psychological damage and loss of chance but awards were also made for expenses like the wedding dress and other things that were paid for in anticipation of marriage. All these claims are no longer permitted under section 1, I do not think a bride can now say to her father that he should pay these expenses for her as she is prevented from making a claim if the relationship breaks down but he is not. Yes I accept that everyone still has other legal rights under contract and restitution, I will not go into the details of these here other than to say I think you misunderstand how they work. In my thinking if the father sues the groom for the cost of the wedding because the relationship broke down and the wedding is cancelled then this is a prima facia breach of promise lawsuit.

Would the father have gifted them that money had they not been getting married? If no then its pretty clear it wasn't unconditional and - like any gift a couple might receive upon getting engaged/marrying - should be returned if the wedding doesn't go ahead.

As for your earlier assertion the groom received no benefit since the wedding didn't take place, that is also incorrect. If he hadn't received that gift, he (together with the bride) would be out of pocket for the deposits themselves.

As I have said over and over, the father is not raising an action on the legal basis of breach of promise to marry - there was no agreement to marry between the father & son.

Section 1 merely states no special legal rights arise from the breach of promise to marry and so you cannot found an action based on that. Section 2 provides special rules (special as in they would not otherwise apply and disputes would be dealt with as any other dispute of that type with no consideration for type of relationship) for how property should be dealt with and divided up. Section 3 relates to gifts between the two parties and makes a special provision to get around the normal rule in law that someone should not benefit from their own wrong. Those sections provide special rights - they do not set out the only circumstances in which a claim may be based.