Jilted bride sues

[Sehrysh]

Re: Jilted bride sues

@Archangel

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.

**The burden of proof in a civil lawsuit is not to prove something “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the standard is "preponderance of evidence. If there is more evidence establishing the likelihood of something having happened - that is enough. And like I mentioned, if the fiance knew or should have known that the result of his action (the act of jilting her days before the wedding) was going to cause or result in distress, that is enough to plead the case. Who wins in the end depends on who the judge or jury believes.
**
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.

**Heresay would be if the person testifying had not themselves directly witnessed the event and was testifying about such an event. For example, Fiance told Tom that he did not want to get married and Tom in turn told Alan. Alan’s testimony is heresay because he did not witness Fiance’s comments. If Tom was called to testify to events he directly witnessed and for which he has first-hand knowledge, such testimony is admissible in court.
**
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.

You’re right, if she had reason to believe that her fiance was not going to marry her and yet she continued to spend, then it goes to show that she 1) failed to mitigate her damages and possibly 2) that the act of being jilted cannot be considered IIED since she may have had prior knowledge or warning of her fiance’s intentions. But again, this would have to be proven in court.

I think an analogy is in order for those who think the bride shouldn’t get any money from the fiance because spending so much money was her choice.

Business man meet a chef, chef has a brilliant idea for a new restaurant. Business man and chef enter into a written contract whereby business man will front all of the cost for constructing, staffing a new restaurant that will bear the chef’s name (the chef has a lot of . Business man spend a lot of money, but chef knows all about how much money the business man is spending. Chef mentions to his other friend, I’m thinking of quitting he profession of being a chef or I want to work somewhere else. He’s made this decision, but he doesn’t tell the business man until 5 days before the restaurant, when he refuses to cook at the restaurant.

If the business man were to sue, it would be to recover the cost of money spent designing/constructing the restaurant. BUT FOR, the contractual agreement entered into by the chef, he wouldn’t have spent the money. In the engagement situation - obviously there is no written contract - it’s not a conventional in that relationship.