Case Number
CA 5258/98
Date Decided
7-14-2004
Decision Type
Appellate
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
Facts: The respondent had a long-term relation with the appellant, while both parties were married to others. During this relationship, the respondent encouraged the appellant to obtain a divorce from her husband, and promised to divorce his wife and marry the appellant. The appellant did obtain a divorce from her husband, but the respondent did not divorce his wife.
The appellant sued for damages for breach of a promise of marriage. The respondent argued, inter alia, that a promise of marriage given by a married man is void for being contrary to public policy. The Magistrates Court awarded a lump-sum compensation to the appellant for non-pecuniary damages, but this decision was overturned by the District Court, which held, by a majority, that the promise was contrary to public policy and therefore void. The Supreme Court gave leave to appeal solely on the question of whether a promise of marriage made by a married man was void for being contrary to public policy.
Held: (Majority opinion — President Barak, Justice Procaccia) A promise of marriage made by a married man is not void for being contrary to public policy, merely because the promissor was married at the time he made the promise.
(Minority opinion — Justice Rivlin) No distinction should be made between a promise of marriage made by a married man and one made by a single man. However, in an action for breach of a promise of marriage, only pecuniary loss should be awarded, and for this reason (rather than for the reason given by the District Court), since the appellant had not claimed any pecuniary loss, the result in the District Court should stand.
Keywords
Criminal Law, Family Law--Adoption, Family Law--Marriage
Recommended Citation
Barak, Aharon; Procaccia, Ayala; and Rivlin, Eliezer, "A v. B" (2004). Translated Opinions. 1.
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/iscp-opinions/1
