Abstract
While the English Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1970 abolished actions for damages for breaches of marriage promises, it is not applicable in Malaysia as the existing general rule of betrothal is derived from the Malaysian Contract Act 1950 (Act 136) and the obligation to follow the English Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1970 has been cut off from Malaysian law by virtue of the cut of date under the Civil Law Act 1956. Using the comparative method, where decided cases were made in the US, India and Nigeria, it can be concluded that embarrassment, anxiety, or emotional distress being the common traditional reasons for the remedy of breach of betrothal continued to be supported by other supporting reasons justifying the continuity of remedial breach of betrothal. This includes transfer of property made by the aggrieved party in consideration of the marriage pledge or when the default party benefitted from the betrothal or pregnancy induced by betrothal.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
