Jilted bride sues

[Sehrysh]

Re: Jilted bride sues

@diwana

@Sehrysh

Under common law, she is entitled to being compensated for having spent money in reliance of the promise made to her. Even in a written contract, one does not need to set out the consequence clause to obtain settlement or compensation for money spent based on a contract having been entered into - see the analogy provided above of the business man and chef. The guy did not need to say I’ll pay you back if I don’t marry you or have witnesses to such an agreement. The agreement that needs to be proven is the engagement - which no one is calling into question. The legal principle is called detrimental reliance.

Does common law applies here? Did they live long enough where common law applies? Is she pregnant? Etc.?

***Even if that applies, he may be responsible of half of expenses at most. There are examples where even court could not make the guy pay the expenses.

http://howdoigetmyexboyfriendback.or…ding-expenses/

Your analogy of chef and restaurant owner does not apply and you yourself said: ***

“In the engagement situation - obviously there is no written contract - it’s not a conventional in that relationship.”

The courts cannot compel the guy to marry the girl, what they can do is undo the monetary damage caused as a result of the actions of the guy.

***What action? Backing out? He is free to do that and she was free to spend. Unless he promised to pay the expenses he is not legally bound. Morally and ethically yes, but not legally as far as we see here. ***

Kyun kai aap khud hi kehtai hai:

Auron ko bhi to yeh mauqa dayna chahiyay, kai woh bhi aap kai intelligence sai impress ho jayein. Jab koi aisay topic pai tapsira kartha hai kai jis mai us ka kam ilm ya maalumaat ho, to woh kisi ko impress karnay kay position mai nahin hota hai - kabhi kabhi khaamosh rehna ya munasib sawaal poochna hi kisi ki zahaniyat ka suboot dayta hai :)***
You can see I am giving you full chance to do that. .***

The LEGAL SYSTEM is called common law, as opposed to civil law. I have never said that the couple was in a “common-law relationship” - that is entirely different.

As for the website you’ve quoted - the people commenting are not legal experts, much like yourself, I assume, and therefore cannot comment with any expertise or knowledge on whether there is a basis or precedent in law for the bride to recover the money spent on the engagement.

You acknowledged earlier that you had not read the original article and it may have escaped your attention that the jilted fiance is a lawyer and she has three additional lawyers who believe that she has a meritorious claim. I could cite Illinois law to support the fact that she does have a right to sue, but it would be wasted on you