|
Breach of promise is a former tort.
From at least medieval times until the early 20th century, a man's promise of engagment to marry a woman was considered, in many jurisdictions, a legally binding contract. If the man were to subsequently change his mind, he would be said to be in "breach" of this promise and subject to litigation for damages.
The converse of this was seldom true; the concept that "it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind" had at least some basis in law and unless an actual dowry of money or property had changed hands, a man was unlikely to recover in a "breach of promise" suit against a woman were he even to be allowed to file one, although there were certainly exceptions to this.
Changing social mores have led to the decline of this sort of action. Most jurisdictions, at least in the 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 Many have repealed all laws regarding such eventualities; whereas in others the statute allowing such an action may technically remain on the books but the action has become very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.
Much of the theory regarding this tort was based on the idea that a female would be more likely to give up her virginity if she had the promise of a man that he would be marrying her; if the man subsequently refused marriage it was considered that this lack of virginity would make her future search for a suitable mate more difficult or even impossible. However, the loss of virginity was not a requirement for recovery, perhaps because of the difficulty in obtaining actual proof of this, and also because of the perception of its likelyhood alone was sufficent grounds for recovery.
In some parts of the world today, a man who breaches a promise to marry may have much more to fear from the woman's father and brothers than from any threat of legal action.
| 
