Broken Engagements: Breach of Promise in Marriage
The Consequences of Breaking Off An Engagement in England
The idea of being sued in court for changing your mind after promising to marry someone may seem quaint today.
After all, couples break off their engagements, or one jilts the other, and it is all put down to that mystery that is the human heart.
So it may come as a surprise to learn how recently the right to sue was taken off the statute books.

We may think the idea of suing for breach of promise has its origins in the Middle Ages, when a man might ‘plight his troth’ – that is, pledge or vow the truth of his intention to marry.
In fact in the Middle Ages the only legal remedy that might be available to someone who had been jilted was if they had given a gift in contemplation of marriage. Then they could sue for its return.
Beyond that, breaking a promise to marry someone was a purely ecclesiastical matter and there were no financial consequences for breaking that promise.
What the church could do was to ‘admonish’ someone who broke his or her promise to marry and it is hard today to understand just what effect being admonished would have on a person or their reputation.
Things changed in the 1600s, in the reign of Charles I, when breach of promise of marriage evolved in the ordinary common law courts in that peculiarly English way that remedies evolved, which was bit by bit, an inch at a time, and trying at all times to avoid any hasty, sweeping principles that could trip up the courts at a later date.
As they evolved, breach of promise cases were treated like any other contract – that is, just like a contract to buy or sell cotton or potatoes.
That meant that in the same way that a merchant was not obliged to disclose all the faults and flaws in his goods, so the parties to an engagement did not owe one another any special duty to disclose all relevant facts.
But if the contract was broken and one side failed to honor his promise, the other could sue for damages for loss of the benefit that would have come from the contract had it been honored.
It’s 1969
The year is 1969. The Beatles have played their last public performance, which took place on the roof of Apple Records. Neil Armstrong has walked on the moon.
And the Law Commission, charged in 1965 by the Engish parliament with reporting on things that ought to be changed in English law, have reported on breach of promise in marriage.
Under a heading in the Law Commission’s First Programme that included “miscellaneous matters involving anomalies, obsolescent principles or archaic procedures” they singled out certain matters that, as they described it “seemed to rest on social assumptions which are no longer valid.”
In 1966 they started to circulate ideas and canvass opinions from lawyers and judges and from organizations that ranged from The Fawcett Society (which campaigns for equality between women and men in the UK on pay, pensions, poverty, justice and politics) to the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council.
The Law Commission published the results of their enquiries, and broadly, the lawyers wanted keep the statute and the other groups did not.
So what was the state of breach of promise over the 100 years before the Law Commission looked into it?
A Brief History of Breach of Promise Actions
In the fifty years up to 1900 there were approximately one thousand breach of promise actions that ended in court with a trial with judgement and damages awarded by a jury.
More cases were started but settled before they got to court.
Until 1869 the court heard evidence from any and everyone except the parties themselves, for until a change in the law in 1869, parties to a breach of promise action were forbidden from giving evidence in court.
Which did not stop the newspapers from printing the details of the evidence that was given by other witnesses, and breach of promise cases were a prime source of public entertainment.
They were so popular that several melodramas and comedies were written on the subject, centering on ‘the trial’. Dickens wrote about poor misunderstood Mr Pickwick being sued for breach of promise by his housekeeper.
In the breach of promise cases that came to trial, the lawyers for the defendants, nearly all men, were usually reported as describing the plaintiffs as scheming, avaricious gold-diggers.
The lawyers for the plaintiff women described the situation differently. Women had very little economic independence. They could not work in many of the professions; they could not vote or even be called for jury service.
So a woman who trusted a man and became engaged to him lost all chance of security if he jilted her. Her chance of finding a secure future was more or less ruined by now being cast-off.
In more than a quarter of the cases that came before the courts the parties had been intimate, and that presented the the all-male juries with a dilemma because the ideal of injured womanhood didn’t sit easily with the idea of a real flesh and blood woman having sex with the man who jilted her.
Nonetheless, unless the woman was proven to have loose morals she had a very good chance of success and the vast majority succeeded.

War and Change
Two World Wars changed the face of the country forever. Women had twice been recruited for essential war work while the men were off being blasted to bits.
By the 1950s the cases were reduced to a trickle, and by the time the Law Commission reported, breach of promise was obsolete. The law abolishing it was passed in parliament in 1970 and became law in 1971, and breach of promise came to an end in a world that was very different from the one in which it began.
The Act that abolished the action for breach of promise is the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 – a short Act of just seven paragraphs and one schedule.
Note: The Act preserved certain rights over property. Ask a lawyer if you think this situation might affect you.
References
The Law Commission Report Vol 26 October 14, 1969
‘Promises Broken: Courtship, Class, and Gender in Victorian England’ G.S. Frost Virginia Press 1995
Postcard images: Printed in Germany for the English market in the 1930s
If you enjoyed this article, please leave a comment. You might also wish to send one of our free ecards that support ethical causes – just follow the link.


{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
Can I sue for breach of promise to marriage. My partner arranged the venue and date for our marriage the bans have been put up the marriage was to take place on the 5th september 2009
He asked me to marry him on 14th February 2009 with a ring, he now does not want to get married. I gave up my bed sit to move in with him in October 2008. The house etc is in his name. I have contributed £540 each month plus telephone and broadband payments and insurance for our pets.
I am sorry to hear of your troubles.
You should ask a practising solicitor for professional advice on this subject. The 1970 Act abolished the action for breach of promise, but it preserved certain rights over property. It may be that you have a right to sue, but I couldn’t advise you.
If you are unsure about seeing a solicitor for advice, or worried about the cost of obtaining advice, I wonder whether you have thought of asking for advice at the Citizens’ Advice Bureau?
I hope this helps, and again – I am sorry for your troubles.
its a shame that law was ever abolished. Broken engagements cost more than just a broken heart. Booking deposits all round, a dress never to be worn, family relations shattered, feelings of being used-and abused etc etc….
You sound as though you have personal experience of this, perhaps you or a family member?
I sympathize whatever the case may be.
Yes, it seems that the change in the law reflects a different world in which we now live, with fewer pressures from the community to ‘do the right thing’.
When I read the title of this post I was attracted to it because I’m trying to deal with a very acrimonious divorce involving minor children, and topics of broken promises always draws my attention. But what a refreshing piece of research, very nicely explained and two nice cartoons as well. Thank you!
Time it was brought back. Too many men use women, promising them a future when they’ve no intention of going through with a wedding.
He’ll usually have had his way with her, then gone on to another mug. Its very easy to buy a £50 cubic zircon ring pretending it’s the real thing, It won’t cost him much, but what about the wreckage he’s left behind, not to mention broken dreams and hearts. I say – bring the law back.
If you have suffered like this, you have my sympathy.
It is not only men who use women, my fiancee left me and our apartment because she didn’t like the fact I had depression. I was left paying for half the apartment (which was rented) and having to move back in with my parents, she said as she’d caused me the distress she would take the furniture to sell and split the proceeds. When asked about this in the following months she said she was trying but it was hard. At this point there was still a joint account. Now the account has been closed she has admitted selling everything and said she would not be sending any money.
I sympathize with your situation.
Trust and commitment are the biggest elements in a relationship (assuming initial attraction) in my opinion.
Broken engagements are still a better option than broken marriages. A little pain now can mean a lot less pain later.
Bottom line should be if you’re not sure of marriage don’t ask until you are.
Yes. I believe the original legislation was designed to distinguish between those who changed their mind (and everyone is entitled to change their mind), and those who never had an intention of carrying out their promise.
I think that this law should be brought back and it should affect both sexes.
People have to be more responsible and make only promises that they can fulfill.
If you’re not ready to get married, don’t ask; if you do for some selfish reasons, then be ready to pay for it.
Thank you for your comment. It makes me think of the ‘broken society’ speeches of David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith, and the traditional versus the liberal views of society and the the individual.
It also makes me think of the role of the state in ensuring social and economic equality between people (including for both sexes) versus the attitude of leaving people to manage as best they can.
It is a complicated issue but I believe that economic social equality is at the heart of it, and when people can believe they are not being taken for a ride by the privileged few, then there is more chance of people behaving fairly towards one another, including in matters of promises to marry.
I agree with Canuk that broken engagements are better that broken marriages ( no harm for children). It is an honest decision and must to be a reason for it.
If Ashley pays Mike some amount of money if he leaves his wife and marries her and then when the money is paid, Mike refuses to divorce his wife, what legal advice can I give to Ashley?
Thank you for your question. I am glad you found the article interesting.
I don’t know what advice you can give Ashley, and you should ask a lawyer.
What occurs to me is that even without breach of promise (which doesn’t exist in England any more – as you can see from the article) – Mike has broken his contract to do something in exchange for money.
But it also occurs to me that maybe this might be one of those kinds of contracts that are unenforceable in law because of public policy.
What I mean is that Ashley is encouraging Mike to divorce, and the law might not like to back up that kind of encouragement.
I really don’t know the answer; I cannot give you any advice about what advice you should give, and I suggest that you and Ashley must ask a lawyer.
What a brilliant article. I am actually interested in some English decisions that predated the 1970 Act on breach of promise to marry as well as settling the position on who gets to keep the ring. Would you happen to have any citations?
Thank you for your lovely comment. You may find what you are looking for in the Times Digital Archive. I hope this is useful to you.
l would love to know if my son could ask for his engagement ring back after her breaking the engagement off and could we take her to court over it?
Thank you,
Hilary Horton
I am not a lawyer so I I can’t give you a definite answer. Maybe you could speak to a lawyer in the Citizens’ Advice Bureau?
For what it is worth, my ‘common sense’ view is that the answer should depend on whether an engagement is a ‘thing’ in itself, or whether it is a step along the way.
I think people are ‘engaged to me married’ and that an engagement is a step along the way.
So the ring wasn’t a gift. It was a token of a marriage that she refused to go through with, so why should he not be entitled to get the ring back?
But that is just my way of looking at it. You need to speak to a lawyer.
Thanks for such a light hearted but illuminating article.
I am a law student from Malta and am working on my dissertation entitled ‘Damages for breach of promise of Marriage’. In Malta we still have the ‘Promises of Marriage Law’ which was enacted in 1834 in force.
found your article very helpful especially since I shall be dedicating a chapter to the position in the UK, France and Italy with regard to the said topic.
I would appreciate any tips on where to look for more information. Thanks again for already being very helpful!
I am glad you enjoyed the article and found it useful. I think you may find the Law Commission report that I mentioned in the footnotes to the article helpful. You can contact the Commission at Law Commission at Steel House 11 Tothill Street London SW1H 9LJ Tel: 020 3334 0200
Do you use Facebook? If so, we always appreciate ‘likes’ there. You can find Quillcards on Facebook, here.
My fiancee breached his promise to marry after I quit my job, closed my apartment, got rid of my personal belongings, and relocated to live in his home. What can be done? The damage is beyond repair.
I don’t know what part of the world you live, and things are different in different parts of the world.
I don’t know what the law says in your part of the world, but speaking for what I think is fair, it seems to me that if you changed your legal position because of what someone else promised and you lost out because he broke his promise, you should be entitled to be compensated. My advice is to go see a lawyer.
Hi, I live in Melbourne, Australia. I have been with my partner for one and a half years and he promised me that he will marry me.
We both are Indians and we both belong to different religions. He is Christian and I am Hindu. When he told his parents about us they refused to accept our love since I am Hindu not Christian and they forced him to get in to an arrangement with another girl.
He is not engaged or married. We separated for few weeks when this happened but after that he came back to me saying he loves me and cannot live without me and this all happened because his parents were blackmailing him.
I cannot let this happen to me just because I was not born Christian. I have been through a very stressful situation in these last months. I could have possibly have lost my life.
This is very sensitive and the marriage arrangement is still on.
I want to know what my options in Australia or India are under the promise of marriage.
I am sorry about your difficult situation. Unfortunately, I don’t know what the law is in Australia or India.
I was succesfully sued by my fiance in 1966!
The fine was £300. Work it out how much that is worth in today’s money. That sum was exactly the same amount that I put down on my house in the same year (10%) so my house was worth then £3K and that same house now sells for £175K.
So by today’s money my breach cost me roughly £18k – A small price to get rid of her and marry the girl who replaced her in my heart and life.
I now laugh but it did hurt her I know( the fiance I mean)
Can anyone claim to have been done at a later date than I was?
You may be the last before the change in the law.
I put it all down to the mysteries of the human heart.
{ 1 trackback }