Jilted bride sues

system · January 1, 2011, 7:07am

Re: Jilted bride sues

Hopefully, my last stab at this (but I never say never :)), and it’s not to prove a point, but rather to clarify the idea of how “intent” applies in the situation.

First of all there are two causes of action mentioned: 1) breach of promise (BOP) and 2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

In order to succeed in a civil suit for BOP, the plaintiff must prove there was a promise which in turn created a i) duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff (to follow through on the engagement and enter into a marriage), that the defendant ii) breached that duty (jilted the bride), iii) that the plaintiff suffered damages (costs of the wedding) that iv) caused as a result of the breach of promise (failure to go through with the marriage). But for the promise by the defendant to the bride that they were to marry, the bride would not have spent the money on the wedding.

For the second cause of action, IIED, the plaintiff has to prove that the i) actions of the defendant were either intentional or reckless, ii) that said actions were not normative behaviour or would be considered egregious by a “reasonable person,” iii) that the action caused the emotional distress and iv) that the plaintiff was some how damaged or hurt as a result. People have hurt feelings every day because of the actions of others, to prove a case for IIED, the key element is that the action must be outrageous when considered by the standards of society or a reasonable person, and the defendant should have known that the plaintiff or another person would be emotionally harmed by his/her actions. I’ve underlined the word action because the action was jilting the bride, rather than as your post suggests, intentionally causing her to spend the money on the wedding. The compensation or damages sought in this situation is to provide reparation for any psychological and emotional distress caused to the plaintiff, as opposed to the loss of deposits for wedding (which would be recoverable under the BOP cause of action).

Phew! I hope that makes sense - sorry for the lengthy response.

@libranrulz - Actually maybe KP and Shak can explain better what I’m apparently failing to get across. I’m more than willing to learn from others - and if I’ve made any errors or omissions, please do correct it.

See with such a beautifully thought out strategy I must interject on behalf of the man. Firstly I believe the issue of IIED is subjective and completely dependent on circumstantial evidence. It can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it on purpose to inflict pain. There can be a host of other reasons, which are equally likely and plausible.

Secondly the comment stating that the fiance was telling all his friends he was going to break up with her is hearsay and thus should be inadmissible in court. The friends can be brought to the witness stand but till they give their testimony the comments are in fact hearsay, and not admissible as evidence and thus should not be the basis for the claim. You can’t make a claim on something that can not be substantiated.

Now on to the BOP. It stands to reason if she had heard rumors that he was not gonna marry her and even then believed him, she is partly to blame. She knowingly accepted his deceit while others were stating that he does not plan to marry her. Even when she heard these rumors and the comments she continued to spend extravagantly without any hesitation. That does place some blame on the lass and leads to the issue of IIED. She had reasonable doubt about his intentions yet she went ahead with all her plans. Pretty self-destructive.