CASE of GUGGENHEIM V ROSENBAUM: breach of promise to marry –

damage
reach of promise to marry damages In 1943 the plaintiff was divorced at Reno in the American
state of Nevada. At that stage she was domiciled in the state of New York. While she resided in
New York she met the defendant, who was on a visit to the United State. The defendant
domiciled in S.A. They fell in love and in New York the defendant asked the plaintiff to marry
him. It was agreed that the marriage would take place in S.A. The plaintiff gave up her flat, sold
her motor vehicle and some of her furniture had the rest of her furniture put into storage and gave
up her employment. When she arrived in Cape Town the defendant met her and repeated his
promise to marry her. The parties went to Johannesburg, where the defendant refused to marry
the plaintiff. She sued him for damages for breach of promise. In reply he pleaded 2 special
defenses:
1. That the plaintiff’s divorce could not be recognized in terms of S.A law since she and her
husband were divorced in a state in which they were not domiciled. The defendants promise to
marry the plaintiff was therefore void as being (more on the ground that the plaintiff was still
legally married.
2. That the law of the state of New York had to be applied to the matter. New York did not
allow the plaintiff to recover damages for breach of promise and the plaintiff’s claim for
damages should therefore be rejected.
The defenses were rejected and the plaintiffs claim for damages was allowed. Plaintiffs claim for
damages was decided as follows:
• Loss on sale of motor vehicle – court rejected plaintiffs claim as she could not prove that the
vehicle was sold below its market value.
• Cost of packing and storing belongings – plaintiff proved these expenses – R187
• Loss of earnings – court found that plaintiff was supported by defendant for a period of time
and that she then found employment in JHB and plaintiff could not prove that this income was
lower than her previous one. Her claim was therefore rejected.
• Loss of apartment – court rejected this claim as she could not prove that she would pay a
higher rental for another apartment should she decided to return to New York
• Cost of returning to New York – rejected
• Prospective loss – the probability would have been that parties would have married anc
excluding the community of property and profit and loss. In the absence of proof to the contrary
it must be assumed against the plaintiff that no marriage settlement would have been made on
her in the anc. Taking into consideration that the defendant is a man of affluence and occupies a
position of life that is superior to her own, she would have therefore derived material benefits
from their marriage – R2000 was approved.
• Delictual damages – R500 award.

SHORT SUMMARY
Defendant concluded engagement & then later denied all knowledge of its existence & court
deemed such conduct iniuria. Court decided there should be a clear distinction between:-* Claim
for damages for breach of contract* Claim for satisfaction for iniuria- Which may be brought in
same action# Damages to be calculated on basis of positive & negative interest A:- Termination
of Engagement , Consequences of termination of engagemen