Re: Jilted bride sues
great
fazool main time wast kia
penalty should be paid ......
Re: Jilted bride sues
Years ago there were reports that when Dodi Fayed started seeing Princess Diana his ex-fiancee that he'd just dumped was planning to sue him but later backed down (after they died)..
Just googled that and turns out the same lawyer who was involved in that case, Gloria Allred (who also represented two of Tiger Wood's mistresses Rachel Uchitel and the pornstar Joslyn James), is involved in this same case the OP has mentioned..
Re: Jilted bride sues
hmmmm
Re: Jilted bride sues
I have not read the article yet. Just read the comments.
The weight of discussion was on following points.
1- The guy calls of wedding 4 days before.
2- The girl spent a huge amount on preparation.
3- The guy gave ring to her for some valued amount.
Arguments in favor of bride to be are;
A- He called off wedding on short notice.
B- He led her on until the last minute.
C- He 'promised' her the wedding.
D- he caused her emotional and monitory loss. (Not really physical)
Arguments in his favor would be:
A- A promise of marriage has no value whatsoever. Till it is not written as a contract, there should not be a contractual value to a promise such as this.
B- Marriage is based on willingness, love and care, not forced on someone. One is free to get out of it anytime before a contract is signed or before 'common law' is applied. Even if common law applies, and they lived together, he can be liable for anything not related to marriage expenses, like common house, and houshold items. (I may be wrong, correct me on my understanding of common law). But still a wedding expense is and should be considered VOULANTARY expenses.
He did not put a gun to her head to spend such money!!
C- it is not proven he actually caused this 'emotional trauma' or financial burden knowngly on malicious intent.
Even if the friends are called upon, some guys do make comment like..."Oh I am marrying finally, wish I stay single or I do have second thoughts" :D
A woman may make such comment also among her friends casually.
Will that really prove he intentionally did that?
He MIGHT have made same comments to her..and in return she MIGHT have increased her expenses to try to win his heart.
D- Emotional trauma is always arbitrary and unmeasurable (not measurable). Like the feeling of 'pain'.
I think the judgment is made sometimes to make an example in individual case rather based on some exact method to measure the emotional trauma.
Re: Jilted bride sues
I think some of you guys are overlooking the fact that even in American culture, the bride's family bears majority of the costs for the wedding, so no matter how much a bride spends, little or a lot....it's still a loss when the wedding is abruptly called off. So the amount spent should be irrelevant b/c even if fraction of it had been spent instead....its stlil a loss no matter what.
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.
Re: Jilted bride sues
I think she should get reimbursed for all of her expenses.
I know its an oversimplified example but when you buy something...it comes with a receipt you can use to return the good in case things dont work out.
If he was so callous as to call off a wedding a day before the actual ordeal...he should be treated just as callously.
No sympathy for him in my book. He let her go in debt knowing he wouldnt marry her. Idiot.
Re: Jilted bride sues
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.
Re: Jilted bride sues
Unless something 'material' is presented from her, as we see now, she has very slim chance to win unfortunately.
.......... 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.
...In the engagement situation - obviously there is no written contract - it's not a conventional in that relationship......
Yes. :)
Perhaps...she should have spent less money on getting a cheap wedding done first, then spend the money after marriage contract was signed...and they had lived for a while. Just thinking.
But still if he wanted to back out, he would have...without paying a single penny on wedding expense.
One cannot by force make someone stay in relation.
Re: Jilted bride sues
And you base this assessment on what expert knowledge pray tell? What material information do you think she is required to present to bolster her case? I’m asking out of curiosity of course and a desire to learn from one as learned as yourself 
Re: Jilted bride sues
That he had said to her I will pay for expenses if I back out. With witnesses.
See chance of that is happening is slim too. Got it?
Re: Jilted bride sues
So correct me if I’m misunderstanding your point. You’re saying she is ONLY entitled to recover the money IF the guy when he proposed to her said: “If I do not marry you, I will pay you back all the money you spent on the wedding arrangements.”
That is what you mean, right?
Re: Jilted bride sues
No not when he proposed but after the arrangement were made by her.
I edited my post above and removed the smilies for better understanding just to let u know.
I said that is the only way she could recover if he had said in case the wedding did not occur because of him even postponing or cancelling altogether, he would pay for the expenses.
My second statement acknowledged already that is a very slim chance. I know where you would go with that, hence I added the second sentence.
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.
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
Re: Jilted bride sues
.
Re: Jilted bride sues
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
Re: Jilted bride sues
Points to be noted.
In this post you have not brought ANYTHING for supporting her claim.
You talked about common law, I gave you answer for that. our words here:
“Under common law, she is entitled to being compensated for having spent money in reliance of the promise made to her.”
You have not brought ANYTHING to counter my posts #29 and #31.
The link I placed was to show, it is acknowledged by many that court cannot help in many cases.
And to your last part of post, I did read the article and know she is a lawyer.
Does not make it automatically that she would win.
Moreover, right to sue was never an issue.
No need to cite Illinois Law. Everyone in US has right to sue anyone for any reason. Does not mean the court will judge in the favor of plaintiff.
Some cases are thrown out and the plaintiff gets penalty for misusing the right and wasting time of the court. (As a student of law you should know the term- frivolous lawsuit)
( Earlier in another thread I proved you that warrants issued does not mean the person is criminal, remember?)
P.S. I love when you keep smacking your head but do not bring anything substantial to refute/counter me.
Re: Jilted bride sues
wow I think what is obvious from this thread is that Diwana does not even understand the most basic of legal terms.
Re: Jilted bride sues
Everyone thinks they’re a doctor or lawyer or personal trainer. 
Re: Jilted bride sues
Indeed a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!