*620 Although damages for loss of expected financial and social condition are more similar to the theory of contractual recovery than to other elements of damages for breach of vows, we do not believe that such damages are justified in light of the concept of marriage in modern society. Although it is possible that marriages were made for material reasons in 17th century England, today`s marriages are generally not considered property transactions, but are, in the words of Professor Clark, « the result of that complex experience called being in love. » Clark, leading at 2. A person does not usually choose a spouse on the basis of financial and social gain; Therefore, the claimant should not be compensated for losing an expectation that he did not have at all. In addition, the marital injury lawsuit is based on violations by the plaintiff, and evidence of the defendant`s property tends to draw the jury`s attention to an investigation into the defendant`s property rather than the plaintiff`s injuries when assessing the plaintiff`s damages. A violation of the promise to marry, or simply « break a promise, » occurs when a person promises to marry another and then withdraws from their agreement. In about half of the U.S. states, a marriage promise is considered legally enforceable as long as the promise or agreement meets all the basic requirements of a valid contract. Professor McCormick concluded that proof of the accused`s wealth has a greater impact on the scope of the verdict than any instruction to pay damages. See C. McCormick, Handbook on the Law of Damages 399, n. 36 (1935). If this is the case, then it is a very strong reason to allow no evidence of the wealth and social position of the accused.

We conclude that damages for the loss of the expected financial and social situation in the context of the action for adultery should no longer be recoverable. This means that proof of the defendant`s property and social status becomes irrelevant to the assessment of the plaintiff`s harm. Obviously, a plaintiff who wins the case cannot force the defendant to marry him if he does not want to. If the claimant wins, he or she cannot receive a specific benefit as a remedy. The defendant cannot be compelled to marry the plaintiff as specified in the contract. On the other hand, a plaintiff`s damages may be subject to « mitigation » or mitigation if the plaintiff acted in any way to contribute to the breach. In October 1974, the plaintiffs and defendants (defendants) were introduced to each other by mutual friends, and soon after, their courtship developed. During their courtship, the defendant assured the plaintiff that he was worth more than $2 million, that he planned to retire in 2 years, and that the two would then travel.

The defendant also promised the plaintiff that she would never have to work again and that he would provide support to his two teenagers. He also promised to ensure that the plaintiff`s mother would never be in distress. [2] The lawsuit for violation of wishes has its origins in the common law. Professor Clark, a well-known authority in the field of family law, postulated that English notions of 17th-century marriage as a property transaction led English common law courts to intervene in a subject that lasted until the 17th century. ==References=====External links===* Official website See H. Clark, The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States 2 (1968) (hereinafter referred to as Clark). In any case, the trial was incorporated into Washington common law (see RCW 4.04.010) and recognized by that court as early as 1905. See Heasley v. Nichols, 38 Wash. 485, 80 p. 769 (1905). Given that the law has its origin in the common law and has not been implemented by Parliament, it is appropriate that we examine it and determine its future viability in the light of today`s society.

See Freehe v. Freehe, 81 Wn.2d 183, 500 p.2d 771 (1972); Pierce v. Yakima Valley Memorial Hosp. Ass`n, 43 Wn.2d 162, 260 P.2d 765 (1953); Wyman vs. Wallace, 15 Wn. App. 395, 549 p.2d 71 (1976). The majority set out in a well-written statement the historical context of the prosecution for violation of the promise of marriage. He gave the political reasons for the abolition of the action, but decided to maintain its main foundations.

The only change is to change the doctrine to the extent that a plaintiff can no longer recover the loss of the expected financial and social situation, but can still claim foreseeable special and general damages caused by the violation of a defendant`s marriage vows. With respect to the suspension of aggravated damages for seduction under a promise of marriage and the like, since the plaintiff did not seek aggravated damages in this case, we leave a decision on aggravated damages to a future case in which the question of such damages arises. We also note that although other states allow punitive damages, such damages are not allowed in that state because they are not permitted by law. See Steele v. Johnson, 76 Wn.2d 750, 458 p.2d 889 (1969). The laws that govern the promise of marriage are known as the « laws of the balm of the heart. » If a state does not enforce a heart balm law, no lawsuit can be brought for violation of the promise of marriage. The parties are not entitled to compensation for losses. However, recovery may still be possible through fraud advocacy. A serious abuse of the lawsuit is that the plaintiff can provide evidence of the defendant`s wealth and social status. This evidence is admissible under the theory that the plaintiff should be compensated for what he lost as a result of the defendant`s non-marriage. See e.B.

Bundy v. Dickinson, 108 Wash. 52, 182, p. 947 (1919); Larson vs. McMillan, 99 Wash. 626, 170 p. 324 (1918); Fisher vs. Kenyon, 56 Wash. 8, 104, p.

1127 (1909); and Heasley v. Nichols, above. Therefore, the amount of damages awarded in the event of a breach of vows is usually at the discretion of the court. A court will consider all the different circumstances related to the party`s relationship, such as: We also do not believe that the prosecution should be abolished so that the persons engaged are free from any coercion to decide to terminate an engagement. While the policy of the state should not be to encourage a person to marry when he has begun to think about a potential partner, it is also the policy of that state to offer a remedy for injuries sustained as a result of the actions of another. Compensation for foreseeable injuries at the time of the establishment of the relationship should not be denied on the assumption that the defendant would prefer to enter into the marriage rather than pay damages for the injuries caused. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine a plaintiff *622 suing a defendant to force the defendant into a marriage that would be unstable at best. It is possible that there will be such an applicant, but this is not a reason to abolish the prosecution for all applicants, as this would result in most applicants not compensating for their injuries at the expense of a few unworthy claimants.

Not all states allow prosecution for violation of the promise of marriage. If you have recently broken up a marriage, you can contact a family law lawyer. Your attorney can determine if your state has a heart balm law and if you may be eligible to compensate for losses incurred as a result of the violation. Finally, we have decided that the action for adultery should be maintained as a contractual, quasi-illegal action for the reimbursement of the foreseeable special and general damage caused by the violation of a defendant`s marriage vows. However, the lawsuit is amended so that a plaintiff cannot recover the loss of the expected financial and social situation, since the marriage is no longer considered an asset transaction. If two people agree to marry, they should know that certain steps will be taken during the engagement period to trust each other`s marriage promises. Rings are purchased, wedding dresses and other formal clothing are ordered or reserved, and honeymoon plans with associated expenses are created. Wedding plans, such as renting a church, hiring a minister, printing wedding invitations, etc., will begin. It is also likely that the parties will make plans for their future residence, for example, .B purchase of a house, the purchase of furniture, etc. In addition, the parties must realize by the time they decide to get married that their plans and visions of future happiness will be communicated to their friends and relatives and that wedding gifts will arrive soon. If the marriage plans are abruptly terminated, it is certainly predictable that the party, who did not know that the future marriage would not take place, has spent sums of money and will suffer some forms of psychological torment, loss of reputation and damage to health.

We do not believe that these violations should go unanswered simply because the violation of wishes could be abused; Rather, an attempt should be made to eliminate abuses of action. . . .