Seduction and Breach of promise
http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=RIGHTS.article&ArticleID=7012600
A man who promises marriage, has sexual relations with his fiancèe and then deserts her, may be sued for seduction as well as for breach of promise - as long as his fiancèe was a virgin before they had sex. If a child is born of their sexual union, the man can be sued for confinement expenses incurred by the woman as well as for support for the child until it is old enough to earn its own living. This money is usually paid to the woman on a monthly basis.
>>
American Jurisprudence, Second Edition.
Seduction: Cr
"Seduction" has been defined as the act of a man enticing a woman to have unlawful intercourse with him by means of persuasion, solicitation, promises,of persuading or inducing a woman of previously chaste character to yield to sexual intercourse by the use of any species of arts, persuasion, deceit, false promises, or other artifices which are calculated to have and do have that
In some instances, "seduction" has referred to the act of a "designing woman"
A state seduction statute that applied only to men because of the definition of
Force is generally a necessary element in establishing the offense of
disapproves. Furthermore, in seduction, unlike rape, the consent of the woman, implied or explicit, has been procured by artifice, deception, flattery, fraud, or
However, the mere threat of force can suffice to remove the conduct from the
"Sexual misconduct" differs from seduction, in that seduction involves allurement, enticement, or persuasion to overcome unwillingness or resistance.[FN8]
2004).
[FN1] Carter v. State, 775 So. 2d 91 (Miss. 1999); Edwards v. Moore, 699 So.
2d 220 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).
[FN2] Hirschy v. Coodley, 116 Cal. App. 2d 102, 253 P.2d 93 (2d Dist. 1953).
Seduction is the act of seducing; the act of a man enticing a woman to have
Seduction imports the idea of illicit intercourse accomplished by the use of
Kathleen K. v. Robert B., 150 Cal. App. 3d 992, 198 Cal. Rptr. 273, 40
[FN3] Hart v. Knapp, 76 Conn. 135, 55 A. 1021 (1903); Blount v. State, 102
[FN4] § 9.
[FN5] Am. Jur. 2d, Rape § 3.
[FN6] Am. Jur. 2d, Rape § 5.
[FN7] People v. Evans, 85 Misc. 2d 1088, 379 N.Y.S.2d 912 (Sup 1975).
As to elements of the offense of seduction, generally, see §§ 3 to 7.
As to consent as an element of seduction, generally, see § 4.
[FN8] People v. Hough, 159 Misc. 2d 997, 607 N.Y.S.2d 884 (Dist. Ct. 1994)
(statute defining sexual misconduct requires proof that lack of consent resulted from forcible compulsion or from incapacity to consent and did not provide for conviction based on allegation that consent given was vitiated
>>
Qualified seduction: 12-18 years. There is abuse of authority,confidence,or relationship
Simple seduction:
>>
The crime of qualified seduction has some of the following elements:
a) the offended party is a virgin;
b) she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age;
c) the offender has sexual intercourse with her;
d) there is abuse of authority, of confidence or of relationship.
>>
If the offender is the brother or ascendant of the victim, elements (a) and (b) are dispensed with.
http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/the-elements-of-the-crime-of-qualified-seduction/
>>
The Canadian Criminal Code, 1892, S.C. 1892, c. 29, s. 182.
[Seduction under promise of marriage.]
182. Every one, above the age of twenty-one years, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years’ imprisonment who, under promise of marriage, seduces and has illicit connection with any unmarried female of previously chaste character under twenty-one years of age. 50-51 V., c. 48, s. 2.
>>
Breach of Marriage Promise
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Breach+of+Marriage+Promise
A common-law right of action for breaking a commitment to enter into matrimony.
Agreement to Marry
An agreement to marry is different from all other contractual relations. The reason for this is that both its object and the relationship created between the parties are completely different from those of any other contract. In order to recover for breach of promise, the plaintiff must establish that the two parties had a valid existing contract to marry. This can be accomplished by a showing that both parties had a clear intent for the agreement to be binding.
If the parties to a contract to marry are incapable of creating a valid agreement due to a legal disability, a lawsuit for breach of marriage promise cannot be sustained. Generally, a valid defense to such an action is the infancy of the promisor at the time of the agreement. The infancy of the promisee, however, is not a valid defense. Statutes provide the ages of infancy.
An individual who is incapable of making a contract due to incompetence will not be held liable for breach of promise. Similarly, a promise to marry someone who is already married is invalid, provided the promisee knew this fact. When the plaintiff was unaware that the promisor was already married, however, he or she may recover. Upon the legal termination of the marriage by Divorce, Annulment, or death of the former spouse, a defendant who breaches a promise to marry the plaintiff may be held liable.
A breach of contract action cannot be maintained when a marriage would be unlawful due to Incest.
Offer and Acceptance
Fundamental elements to the creation of a marriage contract are an offer and acceptance. It is not necessary that the offer be in formal language. The key requirement is that both parties comprehend that there was a clearly intended offer of marriage. A statement of the intention to marry to a third person, absent any other indicated intent, is not enough.
An acceptance of an offer to marry must be given within a reasonable period of time. Such acceptance need not be formal but may be implied from the promisee's behavior. For a marriage contract to be enforceable, there must be a showing that there has been a meeting of the minds of the individuals to the agreement. A promise to marry induced by duress is invalid. Similarly, a promise to marry made by fraudulent inducement—or fraudulent concealment of facts that would prevent the making of the agreement if revealed or disclosed—will render the promise invalid and relieve the innocent party from all liability.
A promise to marry must be based upon legal consideration. Generally, one individual's promise is adequate consideration for the promise of the other party. A promise to marry must not be based solely upon illegal or immoral consideration, such as sexual relations between the parties. A promise based upon legal consideration will not, however, be vitiated merely because unlawful sexual intercourse took place between the parties either prior to or following the promise.
If a promise to marry is conditional, liability for its breach will arise only following the performance or occurrence of the agreed condition.
A contract to marry may be manifested by many promises made at different times; however, there is only a single contract, and only a single breach can take place.
A contract to marry can be rescinded either by mutual consent of the parties or in instances of Fraud or duress. The consent to postpone a marriage alone does not constitute a release of the obligation to perform it.
Breach
Unless there is a legally justifiable reason, an unwillingness to perform one's promise to marry creates a breach of promise to marry. Mere postponement of the wedding does not constitute a breach unless it is done arbitrarily and for no good reason. In such case, the postponement can be regarded as equivalent to a refusal to comply with the marital promise.
Defenses
Defenses exist other than the invalidity or termination of the marriage contract and lack of capacity.
The invalidity of the plaintiff's divorce from a former spouse may be used as a defense only if the issue of the divorce is raised on the ground that there was a lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court to permit the divorce. If the plaintiff had an invalid divorce, the defendant cannot be held liable for breach of the marriage promise because the plaintiff was still lawfully married to his or her former mate and, therefore, could not validly contract a marriage with the defendant.
A valid defense to a breach of marriage promise is the plaintiff's refusal to marry the defendant. The defendant cannot later defend himself or herself on the basis of the fact that he or she subsequently offered to marry the plaintiff. The engagement of the plaintiff to another individual at the time of entering into a contract with the defendant is not a defense. Similarly, the marriage of the plaintiff to another party subsequent to the defendant's breach does not excuse the defendant of liability for a breach. Unattractive personality traits, or offensive conduct, such as drunkenness, cannot be used as a defense. When the objectionable behavior amounts to a felony, however, it can be used as a defense against the plaintiff in a breach of marriage promise action.
Generally, a defendant will successfully defeat an action by alleging physical incapacity or disease that makes it either unsafe or improper to enter into marriage. If a defendant has knowledge of the disability when he or she promises to marry the plaintiff there is no defense. A disability on the part of the defendant that would not interfere with the marital relationship is insufficient to relieve a defendant of his promise.
Damages
The nature and form of an action for breach of marriage promise is contractual. Recoverable damages include Compensatory Damages for injury to the feelings and health of the plaintiff as well as to his or her reputation. A plaintiff may also recover damages for any financial loss resulting from the breach, comparable to the recovery in a breach of any other contract action, in addition to compensation for loss of advantages that would have stemmed from a marital relationship with the defendant.
Further readings
Hirshman, Linda, and Jane Larson. 1998. Hard Bargains: The Politics of Sex. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford Univ. Press.
Tushnet, Rebecca. 1998. "Rules of Engagement: Laws Regarding Broken Marital Engagements." Yale Law Journal 107 (June): 2583–618.
Wallman, Lester, and Sharon McDonnell. 1994. Cupid, Couples, and Contracts: A Guide to Living Together, Prenuptial Agreements, and Divorce. Sandy, Ore.: MasterMedia.
http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=RIGHTS.article&ArticleID=7012600
A man who promises marriage, has sexual relations with his fiancèe and then deserts her, may be sued for seduction as well as for breach of promise - as long as his fiancèe was a virgin before they had sex. If a child is born of their sexual union, the man can be sued for confinement expenses incurred by the woman as well as for support for the child until it is old enough to earn its own living. This money is usually paid to the woman on a monthly basis.
>>
American Jurisprudence, Second Edition.
Database updated July 2007
Seduction: Cr
iminal Liability
West's Key Number Digest, Seduction 29, 30, 33 to 35
"Seduction" has been defined as the act of a man enticing a woman to have unlawful intercourse with him by means of persuasion, solicitation, promises,
bribes, or other means, without the employment of force.[ FN1] Furthermore, seduction has been said to signify a leading astray, and has been described as the act
effect.[FN2]
In some instances, "seduction" has referred to the act of a "designing woman"
in enticing a man to engage in sexual intercourse with her.[ FN3]
A state seduction statute that applied only to men because of the definition of
"seduction" as the act of a man enticing a woman to have unlawful intercourse with
him by means of persuasion, solicitation, promises, bribes, or other means without
employment of force, has been held to be unconstitutional.[ FN4]
Force is generally a necessary element in establishing the offense of
rape,[FN5] as is the absence of the victim's consent.[ FN6] Where force is not employed to overcome reluctance, and where consent, however reluctant initially, can
be spelled out, this we label "seduction," which society may condone even as it
disapproves. Furthermore, in seduction, unlike rape, the consent of the woman, implied or explicit, has been procured by artifice, deception, flattery, fraud, or
promise. These devices cannot supply the element of force and an absence of consent that are essential to the crime of rape and distinguish it from seduction.
However, the mere threat of force can suffice to remove the conduct from the
province of a criminal seduction statute and make it rape. Furthermore, there is some conduct which comes close to the line between rape and seduction.[FN7]
"Sexual misconduct" differs from seduction, in that seduction involves allurement, enticement, or persuasion to overcome unwillingness or resistance.[FN8]
"Actions for injuries to personal rights" include libel, slander, criminal conversation, seduction, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Gremminger v.
Missouri Labor and Indus. Relations Com'n, 129 S.W.3d 399 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D.
2004).
[FN1] Carter v. State, 775 So. 2d 91 (Miss. 1999); Edwards v. Moore, 699 So.
2d 220 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).
[FN2] Hirschy v. Coodley, 116 Cal. App. 2d 102, 253 P.2d 93 (2d Dist. 1953).
Seduction is the act of seducing; the act of a man enticing a woman to have
unlawful intercourse with him by means of persuasion, solicitation, promises, bribes, or other means without employment of force. Slawek v. Stroh,
62 Wis. 2d 295, 215 N.W.2d 9 (1974).
Seduction imports the idea of illicit intercourse accomplished by the use of
arts, persuasions, or wiles to overcome the resistance of a female who is
not disposed of her own volition to step aside from the paths of virtue.
Kathleen K. v. Robert B., 150 Cal. App. 3d 992, 198 Cal. Rptr. 273, 40
A.L.R.4th 1083 (2d Dist. 1984).
[FN3] Hart v. Knapp, 76 Conn. 135, 55 A. 1021 (1903); Blount v. State, 102
Fla. 1100, 138 So. 2, 80 A.L.R. 830 (1931).
[FN4] § 9.
[FN5] Am. Jur. 2d, Rape § 3.
[FN6] Am. Jur. 2d, Rape § 5.
[FN7] People v. Evans, 85 Misc. 2d 1088, 379 N.Y.S.2d 912 (Sup 1975).
As to elements of the offense of seduction, generally, see §§ 3 to 7.
As to consent as an element of seduction, generally, see § 4.
[FN8] People v. Hough, 159 Misc. 2d 997, 607 N.Y.S.2d 884 (Dist. Ct. 1994)
(statute defining sexual misconduct requires proof that lack of consent resulted from forcible compulsion or from incapacity to consent and did not provide for conviction based on allegation that consent given was vitiated
by fraud).
>>
Qualified seduction: 12-18 years. There is abuse of authority,confidence,or relationship
Simple seduction:
12-18 years: OFR is of good reputation, single or widow.
>>
The crime of qualified seduction has some of the following elements:
a) the offended party is a virgin;
b) she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age;
c) the offender has sexual intercourse with her;
d) there is abuse of authority, of confidence or of relationship.
>>
If the offender is the brother or ascendant of the victim, elements (a) and (b) are dispensed with.
http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/the-elements-of-the-crime-of-qualified-seduction/
>>
The Canadian Criminal Code, 1892, S.C. 1892, c. 29, s. 182.
[Seduction under promise of marriage.]
182. Every one, above the age of twenty-one years, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years’ imprisonment who, under promise of marriage, seduces and has illicit connection with any unmarried female of previously chaste character under twenty-one years of age. 50-51 V., c. 48, s. 2.
>>
Breach of Marriage Promise
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Breach+of+Marriage+Promise
A common-law right of action for breaking a commitment to enter into matrimony.
Agreement to Marry
An agreement to marry is different from all other contractual relations. The reason for this is that both its object and the relationship created between the parties are completely different from those of any other contract. In order to recover for breach of promise, the plaintiff must establish that the two parties had a valid existing contract to marry. This can be accomplished by a showing that both parties had a clear intent for the agreement to be binding.
If the parties to a contract to marry are incapable of creating a valid agreement due to a legal disability, a lawsuit for breach of marriage promise cannot be sustained. Generally, a valid defense to such an action is the infancy of the promisor at the time of the agreement. The infancy of the promisee, however, is not a valid defense. Statutes provide the ages of infancy.
An individual who is incapable of making a contract due to incompetence will not be held liable for breach of promise. Similarly, a promise to marry someone who is already married is invalid, provided the promisee knew this fact. When the plaintiff was unaware that the promisor was already married, however, he or she may recover. Upon the legal termination of the marriage by Divorce, Annulment, or death of the former spouse, a defendant who breaches a promise to marry the plaintiff may be held liable.
A breach of contract action cannot be maintained when a marriage would be unlawful due to Incest.
Offer and Acceptance
Fundamental elements to the creation of a marriage contract are an offer and acceptance. It is not necessary that the offer be in formal language. The key requirement is that both parties comprehend that there was a clearly intended offer of marriage. A statement of the intention to marry to a third person, absent any other indicated intent, is not enough.
An acceptance of an offer to marry must be given within a reasonable period of time. Such acceptance need not be formal but may be implied from the promisee's behavior. For a marriage contract to be enforceable, there must be a showing that there has been a meeting of the minds of the individuals to the agreement. A promise to marry induced by duress is invalid. Similarly, a promise to marry made by fraudulent inducement—or fraudulent concealment of facts that would prevent the making of the agreement if revealed or disclosed—will render the promise invalid and relieve the innocent party from all liability.
A promise to marry must be based upon legal consideration. Generally, one individual's promise is adequate consideration for the promise of the other party. A promise to marry must not be based solely upon illegal or immoral consideration, such as sexual relations between the parties. A promise based upon legal consideration will not, however, be vitiated merely because unlawful sexual intercourse took place between the parties either prior to or following the promise.
If a promise to marry is conditional, liability for its breach will arise only following the performance or occurrence of the agreed condition.
A contract to marry may be manifested by many promises made at different times; however, there is only a single contract, and only a single breach can take place.
A contract to marry can be rescinded either by mutual consent of the parties or in instances of Fraud or duress. The consent to postpone a marriage alone does not constitute a release of the obligation to perform it.
Breach
Unless there is a legally justifiable reason, an unwillingness to perform one's promise to marry creates a breach of promise to marry. Mere postponement of the wedding does not constitute a breach unless it is done arbitrarily and for no good reason. In such case, the postponement can be regarded as equivalent to a refusal to comply with the marital promise.
Defenses
Defenses exist other than the invalidity or termination of the marriage contract and lack of capacity.
The invalidity of the plaintiff's divorce from a former spouse may be used as a defense only if the issue of the divorce is raised on the ground that there was a lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court to permit the divorce. If the plaintiff had an invalid divorce, the defendant cannot be held liable for breach of the marriage promise because the plaintiff was still lawfully married to his or her former mate and, therefore, could not validly contract a marriage with the defendant.
A valid defense to a breach of marriage promise is the plaintiff's refusal to marry the defendant. The defendant cannot later defend himself or herself on the basis of the fact that he or she subsequently offered to marry the plaintiff. The engagement of the plaintiff to another individual at the time of entering into a contract with the defendant is not a defense. Similarly, the marriage of the plaintiff to another party subsequent to the defendant's breach does not excuse the defendant of liability for a breach. Unattractive personality traits, or offensive conduct, such as drunkenness, cannot be used as a defense. When the objectionable behavior amounts to a felony, however, it can be used as a defense against the plaintiff in a breach of marriage promise action.
Generally, a defendant will successfully defeat an action by alleging physical incapacity or disease that makes it either unsafe or improper to enter into marriage. If a defendant has knowledge of the disability when he or she promises to marry the plaintiff there is no defense. A disability on the part of the defendant that would not interfere with the marital relationship is insufficient to relieve a defendant of his promise.
Damages
The nature and form of an action for breach of marriage promise is contractual. Recoverable damages include Compensatory Damages for injury to the feelings and health of the plaintiff as well as to his or her reputation. A plaintiff may also recover damages for any financial loss resulting from the breach, comparable to the recovery in a breach of any other contract action, in addition to compensation for loss of advantages that would have stemmed from a marital relationship with the defendant.
Further readings
Hirshman, Linda, and Jane Larson. 1998. Hard Bargains: The Politics of Sex. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford Univ. Press.
Tushnet, Rebecca. 1998. "Rules of Engagement: Laws Regarding Broken Marital Engagements." Yale Law Journal 107 (June): 2583–618.
Wallman, Lester, and Sharon McDonnell. 1994. Cupid, Couples, and Contracts: A Guide to Living Together, Prenuptial Agreements, and Divorce. Sandy, Ore.: MasterMedia.
