Re: Jilted bride sues
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. 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.
I quite like your answer. I also think you’re a damn good lawyer
To me, the case still smells of a jilted bride trying to get back at the fiance for being dumped but what do I know lol.