Editing Breach of promise (section)

{{Short description|Common law tort relating to promise to marry}}
{{distinguish|breach of contract}}
{{for multi|the films|Breach of Promise (1942 film){{!}}''Breach of Promise'' (1942 film)|and|Breach of Promise (1932 film){{!}}''Breach of Promise'' (1932 film)}}
{{Tort law}}

'''Breach of promise''' is a [[common-law]] [[tort]], abolished in many [[jurisdiction]]s. It was also called '''breach of contract to marry''',<ref name="NYLaw">N.Y. Civil Rights Act article 8, §§ 80-A to 84. {{cite web |title=Causes of action for Alienation of Affections, Criminal Conversation, Seduction and Breach of Contract to Marry abolished |url=https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-civil-rights/article-8-causes-of-action-for-alienation-of-affections-criminal-conversation-seduction-and-breach-of-contract-to-marry-abolished/section-80-a-causes-of-action-for-alienation-of-affections-criminal-conversation-seduction-and-breach-of-contract-to-marry-abolished |access-date=February 7, 2012 |website=CaseText |publisher=}}</ref> and the remedy awarded was known as '''heart balm'''.

From at least the [[Middle Ages]] to the early 20th century, many jurisdictions regarded a man's promise of [[engagement]] to [[marry]] a woman as a legally binding [[contract]]. If the man subsequently changed his mind, he would be said to be in "breach" of this promise and could be subject to litigation for damages.

The converse of that was seldom true. The concept that "it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind" had at least some basis in law (though a woman might pay a high social price for exercising this privilege). Unless a [[dowry]] of money or property had changed hands, or the woman could be shown to have become engaged to a man only to enable her use of his money,<ref>{{cite book |last1= Lehman |first1= Jeffrey |last2= Phelps |first2= Shirelle |title= West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 5 | edition=2 |date=2005 |publisher=Thomson/Gale |location=Detroit |isbn= 9780787663742 |page=235}}</ref> a man could rarely recover in a "breach of promise" suit against a woman if he was even allowed to file one.

Changing social attitudes toward morals have led to a decline in the number of legal actions in response to "{{linktext|jilting}}". Most jurisdictions, at least in the [[English language|English]]-speaking [[common-law]] world, have become increasingly reluctant to intervene in cases of personal relationships not involving the welfare of children or actual violence. Many of them have repealed all laws regarding such eventualities,<ref name=NYLaw />{{Failed verification|date=September 2024}} and in others, the statute allowing such an action may technically remain on the books, but the action has become very rare and unlikely to be pursued with any probability of success. Arising in its stead are judicial opinions and/or statutes permitting a breach-of-contract action for [[wedding]] expenses incurred when the nuptials are called off or for loss of employment, moving and living expenses incurred by one party as a result of an engagement, which is later broken.