Breach may take the form of non-performance (time has come for performance) or anticipatory (time yet to come) Defences include misrepresentation, bad character, mental or body infirmity making marital performance impossible and mutual release. Relief is award of damages only. For Mohammedan unless marriage completes, no rights and obligations arises, only relief is the return of exchanges.
Frost v Knight – per Cockburn C.J promisee may sue for breach upon realisation or treat contract as existing and sue immediately when the time arrives.
Sarbah argues that in Gh no cause of action could arise for breach of promise to marry even if there is betrothal and forfeits any cansawment or thing given, this position is challenged with our law’s development that no action arises where no betrothal is made however if made, action will arise. Per Kwame Addo v Adjoa Duko 1928 case parties agreed to marry each other, man bought necklace for lady in expectation of customary rites woman failed to perform her part, claim for 25 pounds and necklace was granted.
Donkor v Ankrah – Not maintainable where under capacity, the principle that breach of promise to marry isn’t applicable to customary law must be restricted to where no betrothal is made, but applicable if made.
Kporfor v. Sasu – Not applicable where promisee knew promissor was married and lacked capacity to contract another marriage. Afrifa v Class Peters – ring and bible unknown to Ga customary law and shows intention to marry under ordinance and basis for action for breach of promise to marry, and the cohabitation however long wasn’t conclusive of customary marriage, postponement was in respect of ordinance marriage.
Djarbeng v. Tagoe – per Ampiah J a mere statement to wed promisee wasn’t conclusive of promise to marry under customary, nothing was given to signify promise nor any approval from promisee’s family. Obiter on processes of customary marriage without family consent improperly withhold is a contract to marry before witnesses and in presence of respectable chief or headman and subsequently living together as couples.
Aning v Kingful – church wedding wasn’t a blessing of customary marriage existing, it is a promise to marry under ordinance and failure will be a breach, where it fails customary marriage is imputed, customary subject upon ordinance registration still subject to customary law except those excluded by statute.
Acheampong v Acheampong – Wife entitled to sue husband as any person, wife and husband being one is unknown to customary law, customary marriage different in form and incident from ordinance and could sue for failure to convert customary to ordinance.
Badu v Boakye – Akontagyan wasn’t refundable and was mere notice to family of woman about existence of concubinage. It was neither a promise to marry nor created a legal relationship between parties.
Available remedy in breach of promise to marry is general damages, not fixed, no specific performance, damages at large and in three categories, Compensatory-classified into mental distress, loss of reputation or economic advantage, social disgrace, injured feelings, incurred expenses, pecuniary loss and loss of future married prospects, Aggravated-seduction or non-disclosure of venereal disease and Punitive-fraud and malice. Per Donkor v Ankrah being blessed with a child is an additional baggage to carry into a relationship and not attractive to eligible bachelor and general damages will be awarded, she may lose colour and not glitter as she was before the birth.