North East Journal of Legal Studies North East Journal of Legal Studies
Volume 22
Fall 2011
Article 3
Fall 2011
Broken Promises - Recovery of Emotional Distress for Breach of Broken Promises - Recovery of Emotional Distress for Breach of
Wedding Related Contracts Wedding Related Contracts
Patricia M. Sheridan
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fair8eld.edu/nealsb
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Sheridan, Patricia M. (2011) "Broken Promises - Recovery of Emotional Distress for Breach of Wedding
Related Contracts,"
North East Journal of Legal Studies
: Vol. 22 , Article 3.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.fair8eld.edu/nealsb/vol22/iss1/3
This item has been accepted for inclusion in DigitalCommons@Fair8eld by an authorized administrator of
DigitalCommons@Fair8eld. It is brought to you by DigitalCommons@Fair8eld with permission from the rights-
holder(s) and is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this item in any way that is You are free to use this item in any way that is
permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses, you need to obtain permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses, you need to obtain
permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license
in the record and/or on the work itself.in the record and/or on the work itself. For more information, please contact [email protected].
2011/Broken Promises/42
BROKEN
PROMISES-
RECOVERY OF EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS
FOR
BREACH
OF
WEDDING
RELATED
CONTRACTS
By
*Patricia M. Sheridan
IINITRODUCTION
Damages for emotional distress are not usually
recoverable
in
breach
of
contract actions. The Restatement
(Second)
of
Contracts Section 353 provides:
Recovery for emotional disturbance will be excluded
unless the bread, also caused bodily harm
or
the
contract
or
the breach is
of
such a kind that serious
emotional disturbance was a particularly likely resift'
Where a breach results in physical injury, a tort action may
be
more appropriate. Tinder the second exception, the official
comment to the Restatement gives examples
of
contract
breaches that satisfy the "particularly likely" test as contracts
of
carriers and innkeepers with passengers or guests, contracts for
the transport
or
proper disposition
of
dead bodies and contracts
for the delivery
of
messages concerning death.2
*Assistant Professor
of
Business Law, Manhattan College,
Riverdale, New York.
....
43Nol26/North
East Journal
of
Legal Studies
The Appellate Court stated that in order to establish a claim
of
negligent infliction
of
emotional distress, the plaintiff needed
to prove that the defendant's actions created an unreasonable
risk
of
causing emotional distress. Noting that a contract for
wedding services creates a rigorous expectation for contractual
performance:
1
the court concluded that the manor's conduct in
giving her wedding date to another couple would undoubtedly
cause any bride emotional distress. The court stated:
A wedding is generally considered one
of
the most
important days in one's life.
his
also widely known that
such a ceremonious event requires extensive
planning
and
preparation
...
The
manor
is
in
the
business
of
hosting weddings and receptions.
It
is in a position to
see how clients react to a myriad
of
wedding related
mishaps.l2
The court determined that an award
of
$2000 in economic
damages for breach
of
contract and $15,000
in
compensatory
damages for the negligent infliction
of
emotional distress was
fair and reasonable.l3
In
another Connecticut case where a wedding
photographer breached
an
agreement to take wedding photos, a
bride sued both for breach
of
contract and the intentional
imposition
of
emotional distress.
In
Baillargeon
v.
Za7l711(11 70,l4
the bride alleged that she contacted defendant photographer
several times about retaining his services to photograph her
wedding. When the bride appeared at his studio to pay for the
photos
and
albums
,
the
photographer
made
her
leave
and
denied having any knowledge
of
the bride
or
her wedding date .
20
ll/Broken
Promises/44
She was unable to obtain a substitute photographer on such
short notice, and asked a friend to attempt to take some photos
at the wedding. She was left with only a handful
of
inferior
small size color prints. The bride claimed that she became
extremely distraught following defendant's refusal to perform
the services. The court stated:
The emotional impact
of
this episode
on
this
21
year
old woman preparing for her first marriage, in the midst
of
other wedding plans and preparations, is not hard to
imagine. The Court concludes that this callous, cruel,
and unethical behavior
of
the defendant not only
deprived
her
of
a
major
part
of
her
wedding
day
pleasure and its tangible reminder, she also suffered
extreme emotional anguish because
of
the intentional,
willful and wanton behavior
of
the defendant."
The court awarded $4500 for the breach
of
contract and the
intentional infliction
of
emotional distress.
In these cases, plaintiffs sought emotional distress
damages under a mixture
of
tort and contract theories. The
facts in both cases essentially involved a breach
of
contract, but
the
courts
found
the
manner
of
breach
sufficiently
objectionable so as to constitute an independent wrong. The
emotional distress damages were awarded primarily to
compensate for the wrongful conduct and not
as
reimbursement
for contractual losses. While the cases do not specifically
exclude emotional distress damages in a breach
of
contract
action, the
decisions
seem
to
indicate
that these
claims
are
more properly asserted in a tort. The cases provide limited
.....
45/Vol 26/North East Journal
of
Legal Studies
guidance as to whether emotional distress damages should be
available where the action is exclusively for breach
of
a
wedding-related contract.
2. Emotional Distress Damages Not Permitted Unless Breach
Causes Physical Infuty
Several jurisdictions strictly adhere only to the first
exception set forth in the Restatement, namely, that damages
for emotional distress are excluded unless the breach also
caused bodily harm.
16
The official comment to the
Restatement Second (Contracts) Section 353 provides:
Damages for emotional disturbance are not ordinarily
allowed. Even
if
they are foreseeable, they are often
particularly difficult to establish and to measure. There
are, however, two exceptional situations where such
damages are recoverable.
In
the first, the disturbance
accompanies a bodily injury. In such cases the action
may nearly always be regarded as one in tort, although
most jurisdictions do not require the plaintiff to specify
the nature
of
the
wrong
on
which his
action
is based
and award damages without classifying the wrong,
11
Oklahoma courts are committed to the rule that no
recovery can be had for mental pain and anguish, which is not
produced by, connected with,
or
the result of, some physical
suffering
or
injury,
to
the
person
enduring
the
mental
. h 18 h
anguts .
In
ot
er
words, Oklahoma law does not compensate
for mental anguish or disturbance alone - it must be a part
of
the physical suffering and inseparable therefrom, as where the
mental anguish is superinduced by physical hunger pains.l9
20 11/Broken Promises/46
The requirement
of
physical injury prevented the bride
in
Seidenbach'-, Inc. v.
Williain/
0
from recovering damages for
mental pain and anguish caused by the nondelivery
of
her
wedding dress. The bride sought $716.61 in actual damages
caused
by
defendant department store's failure
to
deliver her
wedding
gown
and
veil
in
time
for
her
wedding.
The
bride
also sought $10,000 in special damages as a result
of
the
wanton, negligent and willful acts
of
defendant, claiming that
her "formal wedding was shattered and laid to ruin from the
absence
of
the
gown
and
veil,
causing
her
to
suffer
great
mental anguish, humiliation and em.barrassment"
2
i because she
was forced to be married in her honeymoon trip suit. Noting
that a substantial portion
of
the bride's recovery was for mental
anguish, and also that she neither alleged nor proved that
defendant's failure to deliver her gown and veil caused her any
physical injury, the Supreme Court held that an award for
mental anguish was improper.22
There can be no recovery for mental pain and anguish
unconnected with physical injury in an action arising
out
of
breach
of
a contract under Florida law.
23
In Floyd
v.
Video
Barn
, Inc.,
24
the
plaintiffs
entered
into
a
contract
with
the
Video
Barn
for the videotaping
of
their
daughter's wedding.
On
the day
of
the wedding, a Video
Bam
employee mistakenly
videotaped another wedding taking place at a nearby church.
The bride's parents sued for breach
of
contract and included a
claim for mental and emotional pain because they did not have
a videotape to memorialize their daughter's wedding. The
bride's mother claimed that she was looking forward to being
able to view her daughter's wedding ceremony for years to
come and that she was terribly upset and disappointed when
....
47Nol26/North
East Journal
of
Legal Studies
she realized that she would not have the opportunity to do so.
The
Court
of
Appeals
of
Florida denied the claim for mental
and emotional pain resulting from Video Bam's taping the
wrong wedding and stated, "Where the gravamen
of
the
proceeding is breach
of
contract, even
if
such breach be willful
and flagrant, there can be no recovery for mental pain and
anguish resulting from the breach. "2)
Mental suffering is not a proper element
of
damages for
breach
of
contract under Pennsylvania law except where the
breach was wanton or reckless and caused bodily harm.
In
Carpel v. Saget Studios, Ine.,
26
a newly married couple sued
defendant photography studio for failure to deliver their
wedding photographs. The couple had contracted with the
photography studio to take black and white photographs
of
their wedding, but received only ten color photographs taken
during the service.
In
rejecting plaintiffs claim for emotional
distress damages, the District Court held, "In actions for breach
of
contract, damages will not be given as compensation for
mental suffering, except where the breach was wanton
or
reckless and caused bodily harm. "27
Requiring that physical or bodily injury accompany the
contract breach imposes a special condition for recovery
of
emotional distress damages not required for any other type
of
consequential contract damages. When bodily injury occurs
in
connection with a contract breach, emotional distress damages
compensate mainly for the physical pain and suffering caused
and not the harm to plaintiffs emotional well-being. In the
context
of
wedding-related contracts, denying recovery for
emotional distress absent physical impact may lead to the
20
11
/Broken Promises/48
overly harsh result
of
excluding emotional distress damages
in
nearly all such cases.
The
requirement
of
bodily injury
or
physical impact imposes an unnecessary restriction on the
availability
of
emotional distress damages in breach
of
contract
actions.
3.
Emotional Distress Damages Permitted
If
Foreseeable
As already indicated above, courts have permitted
contract recoveries for cases involving services to be rendered
upon
one's physical person
or
services which relate to matters
of
highly charged emotional
or
sentimental nature, such as
weddings, illness, death
or
burial.
28
The
rationale
is
that
in
contracts
dealing
with
particularly
personal
or
sensitive
matters, it is foreseeable that a subsequent breach will cause
mental distress.
29
The
common
bond among
such
contracts is
that they are all
of
a highly personal nature and deal with peace
of
mind.
36
Jurisdictions that award emotional distress damages
for breach
of
wedding-related contracts recognize the unique
circumstances which make emotional distress a highly
foreseeable effect
of
a breach, and essentially apply the
"particularly likely" test contained in the Restatement.
Louisiana courts have long been sympathetic to the
plight
of
brides and grooms
who
suffer mishaps
on
their
wedding day. In 1903, the bride in
Lewis
v.
Holmes
31
sued to
recover damages for breach
of
contract resulting from
defendant millinery's failure to
sew
and deliver four dresses for
her wedding trousseau.
The
Supreme Court
of
Louisiana ruled
that the bride's disappointment, and her humiliation in going to
49Nol26/North
East Journal
of
Legal Studies
her
husband without a suitable trousseau, was within
the contemplation
of
the parties.
The
court stated:
In computing the damages, the allowance must
be
restricted to
what
may reasonably be held to have been
within the contemplation
of
the parties
in
entering into
the contract.
The
contract was to furnish the dresses in
time for the wedding
on
the 19
111
• D.H. Holmes
must
be
held to have known that,
if
the dresses were not
furnished
by
that day, the bride would be keenly
disappointed.
Also
that
the
bride
would
need
the
dresses for the festivities incident to
her
wedding
and
immediately following, for which it is customary for
brides to provide themselves with a trousseau. In
gauging
this
disappointment
of
the
bride
the
surrounding circumstances, must, as a matter
of
course,
be considered.
And
one
of
these is the fact that
entertainments were planned, and that for want
of
the
dresses these entertainments
would
have to
be
given up:
and another
is
her
humiliation in going to
her
husband
unprovided with a suitable trousseau.32
In
light
of
these unusual circumstances, the court awarded the
bride $575 in special damages caused by the failure to make
and deliver the dresses.33
In
Mitc
hell
v.
Shreveport
Laundries
, Inc.,
34
the
groom
left his wedding suit with a laundry to
be
cleaned and pressed,
telling the laundry that
he
wanted to wear the suit at his
wedding eight days later. Despite repeated assurances
by
the
laundry, on the
day
of
the
wedding the groom learned that his
2011/Broken Promise
s/
50
suit was lost.
The
groom,
of
unusual size and physique, was
unable
to
find another suit to fit him in time for the ceremony.
He was forced to be married in the only other good suit
of
clothes he owned, a light colored suit that he had been wearing
for several weeks which was noticeably soiled and unkempt in
appearance_ Further, he had to travel on his honeymoon with
only
the
soiled
suit
"and
that
he
was
humiliated
and
embarrassed
by
being subject to ridicule
of
the guests
of
the
hotel and the general public."
35
The
groom sued the laundry for
the cost
of
the suit and sought damages for embarrassment and
humiliation. The Court
of
Appeal
of
Louisiana held that
damages for mental anguish, mortification and embarrassment
were appropriate because such damages
mu
st have been
foreseen at the time
of
making the contract.36
In
Grather v. ',ripely Studios,
Th
e.
,
37
a married couple
sought damages for mental anguish and embarrassment for the
unprofessional manner in which a photographer took pictures
of
their wedding.
The
couple claimed that the photographer
was impatient and careless when taking their wedding photos,
resulting in photographs with poor positioning and
unsatisfactory backgrounds including exit signs and dirty
dinner dishes. The Louisiana Court
of
Appeal stated that "A
bride and groom who desire nonamateur photographs and
employ a professional photographer are seeking 'the
gratification
of
some intellectual enjoyment' .
..
When the
photographs are
of
less than professional quality, the bride and
groom are deprived
of
the full enjoyment, which they can
rightfully expect,
of
pictures commemorating their wedding
and reception."
38
Plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for
SIN
ol 26
/N
orth East J oumal
of
Legal Studies
this loss
of
enjoyment and the court awarded damages for
mental anguish and humiliation.39
Ohio state law does not usually permit compensation
for emotional distress resulting from a breach
of
contract, but
recognizes an exception for cases involving marriage where
ordinary contract remedies are clearly inadequate.
40
In Deiisch
v.
Th
e Music Co.,
41
the newlyweds sued defendant music
company when a four-piece band failed to arrive and play at
their wedding reception. The couple made several attempts to
contact
defendant
from
the
reception
hall
,
but
were
unsuccessful. "After much wailing and gnashing
of
teeth,
plaintiffs were able to send a friend to obtain some stereo
equipment to provide music."
42
In determining the correct
measure
and
amount
of
damages
for
the
breach
, the
court
found
that
the
simple
return
of
the
deposit
would
not
adequately compensate plaintiffs. "Certainly, it must be in the
contemplation
of
the parties that the damages caused
by
a
breach
by
def
endant would be greater than the return
of
the
deposit
that would be
no
damages
at all."
43
The
court held
that
in
a case
of
this type, the
out-of
-pocket loss, which would
be the security deposit,
or
even perhaps the value
of
the band's
services, where another band could not readily be obtained at
the
last
minute,
would
not
be
sufficient
to
compensate
plaintiffs.
The
court
awarded
damage
s
for
the
couple'
s
distress, inconvenience, and the diminution in value
of
their
reception, as well as the refund
of
their security deposit.
44
In
Br
ow
ning
v.
Fie
s,
45
the Court
of
Appeals
of
Alabama stated that "Injury to the feelings
-mental
harassment
2011/Broken Promises/52
-is
an element
of
actual damages. Wounding a man's feelings
53No
l26
/North East Journal
of
Legal Studies
is as
much
an
element
of
actual
damages
as
breaking
his
limb
."
46
In
Browning, the defendant livery service contracted
with plaintiff bridegroom to provide a carriage and team for
transportation
of
the wedding party on plaintiffs wedding
day
.
The defendant failed to send a carriage and the groom and his
family were forced to board a public street car and walk along
the streets in their wedding apparel.
The
wedding ceremony
was delayed because the groom did not reach the church on
time. The groom sought damages for the actual financial loss
arising out
of
the breach and damages for mental suffering,
physical pain, humiliation and mortification. The lower court
refused to allow damages for mental suffering. The Court
of
Appeals
of
Alabama, however, reversed and held:
In
this particular case, considering the subject-matter
of
the contract, the special purpose and exceptional use to
which plaintiff intended to put the carriage, which
wa
s
communicated and well known to the defendants ... it
would seem that it was in the reasonable contemplation
of
the parties when the contract was entered into under
the known circumstances, that the immediate
ef
fect and
proximate result ensuing from a
br
each
of
the contract
by
the defendants would cause the plaintiff
inconvenience, annoyance, mental harassment, or
distre
ss ..
as
well
as
mental
pain
in
consequence
thereof Certainly it
is
but common knowledge that
so
m e
distress
of
mind
mu
s t
be
the
natural
and
proximate
consequence
of
being
delayed
and
not
having proper conveyance to meet an appointment
of
such delicate nature.47
20 11/Broken Promises/54
These
jurisdictions
permit
recovery
of
emotiona
l
distress damages for breach
of
wedding-related contracts due to
the sensitive, personal nature
of
such agreements. A wedding
is
universally considered
to
be one
of
the most significant
events in one's lifetime, and the contracts made in connection
with the wedding festivities inevitably include heightened
expectations
of
perfect
or
near perfect contractual performance.
Those businesses involved in the wedding industry have reason
to know how clients react to wedding mishaps. Given this
emotionally charged contractual setting, the parties must
certainly foresee that any defective performance will cause
severe anxiety and mental distress for the bride and groom.
While the above cases do not specifically reference the
Restatement rule, the courts essentially consider the unique
circumstances surrounding the contract formation and conclude
that it
is
"particularly likely" that any breach
of
a wedding-
related contract will lead to severe anxiety and mental distress
for the bride and groom.
CONCLUSION: EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES ARE
JUSTIFIED FOR BREACH OF WEDDING-RELATED
CONTRACTS
The "particularly likely" test set forth in Restatement
Section 353 offers the
most
reasonable and logical approach
for determining when damages for emotional distress are
properly awarded in a breach
of
contract action. Applying this
test imposes a sensible tightening
of
the basic requirement that
contract damages be foreseeable. To justify emotional distress
damages, the breach must be
of
such a kind that emotional
...
55N ol26/North East Journal
of
Legal Studies
disturbance was a particularly likely result, not merely an
incidental consequence
of
the breach.
As stated in the landmark case
Hadley
v.
B
ax
end
al
e,
48
contract damages are limited to "such
as
may
fairly and
reasonably
be
considered
either
arising
naturally
, i.
e.,
according to the usual course
of
things, from such breach
of
contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have
been in the contemplation
ofboth
parties at the time they made
the contract, as the probable result
of
the breach
of
it. "
49
The
Restatement
(Second)
of
Contracts
Section
351
further
provides:
Damages are not recoverable for loss that the party in
breach did not have reason to foresee as a probable
result
of
the breach when the contract was made. Loss
may
be foreseeable as a probable result
of
a breach
because
it
follows from the breach ... as a result
of
special circumstances, beyond the ordinary course
of
events, that the party in question had reason to
know.5°
The "particularly likely" test goes further than mere
foreseeability and limits claims to those situations where the
emotional distress was unquestionably anticipated
by
both
parties as a consequence
of
a breach in light
of
special
circumstances known to both parties at the time
of
contracting.
When making contractual arrangements for a wedding, peace
of
mind is clearly a priority for the bride and groom. The
provider
of
wedding goods
or
services knowingly undertakes
more than typical business obligations; emotional well-being
2011/Broken Promises/56
becomes part
of
the subject matter. 5
1
A contract breach that
57Noi26/North
East Journal
of
Legal Studies
causes a wedding day mishap leads to predictable emotional
distress for the bride and groom and this anxiety should come
as no surprise to a business person dealing with these contracts
every day. As Professor Douglas Whaley states:
Most
contract
breaches
do
not
cause
significant
amounts
of
mental anguish. But for the sorts
of
contracts
where
human
emotions
are
very
much
at
issue: weddings, ... etc., peace
of
mind and freedom
from worry are part
of
the bargain as the defendant very
well knew, and
if
the defendant breaches these sorts
of
contracts, the defendant should pay for the agony
suffered as an obvious consequence. There
is
no
surprise here; the issue
of
foreseeability takes care
of
that. Nor is the rule unfair to the defendant.
If
defendant
is going to traffic in the kind
of
contract that risks
emotional distress when breached, let the defendant
bear that risk.52
The risks associated with the wedding industry are
balanced by the potential for high profit. According to one
survey conducted in 2009,
53
the average wedding budget in the
U.S. was $28,385 (not including the honeymoon) with New
York City and Long Island having the highest national average
of$56,999
and $55, 877 respectively. 5
4
As one New York
judge observed:
Weddings are a special time for celebration and
happiness filled with special moments that mark the
beginning
of
a new family and a life together.
Weddings are unique and, hopefully, once in a lifetime
20
!!
/Broken Promises/58
events. Weddings have endured the passage
of
time
which is why they are still celebrated today. Brides,
grooms and parents spend extraordinary sums and
expect the wedding and reception to be magical and
memorable in every respect. Generally, the courts
agree.
5
5
In
light
of
the lavish spending and fairytale image associated
with weddings, compensation for emotional distress due to a
wedding day mishap is clearly appropriate.
Many jurisdictions permit emotional distress damages
for breach
of
wedding- related contracts, and the remaining
jurisdictions should uniformly follow suit. Such awards are
consistent with traditional rules limiting contract damages to
those that are foreseeable and within the contemplation
of
both
parties at the time
of
contracting. In addition, a breach
of
any
promise to provide wedding goods or services
is
"particularly
likely" to cause severe emotional distress for the disappointed
bride and groom. Businesses that provide wedding goods and
services are keenly aware
of
the emotional significance
of
the
contracts they make, and often exploit the "dream wedding"
scenario to their own financial advantage. A bride and groom
who experience a wedding day disaster are entitled to
compensation for the understandable anxiety (and tears) that
flow from the breach.
1
Restatement (Second)
of
Contracts
§3
53 (2008).
2
Id.
§353 comment a.
3 /d.
..
59Noi26/North
East Journal
of
Legal Studies
37
Grather
v.
Tipery
Studios,
Inc., 334 So.2d 758 (La. Ct. App. 1976).
38 'id
39
Id.
10
international
Union
of
Automobile
Workers v.Park-Ohio
Industries,
687
F.Supp. 338, 342 (iN.D. Ohio 1987).
41
Deitsch
v.
The
Music
Co., 6 Ohio Misc.2d 6, 453 N.E.2d 1302 (1983).
2
id. at 7, 453 N.E.2d at
1303.
43
1d
. at 8, 453 N.E.2d at
1304.
Id
.,
See
also
Pullman
Company
v , 72 Ohio
St.
690, 76 N.E. 1131
(1905).
Browning
v. Pies, 4 Ala. App. 580, 58 So.
931
(1912).
Id . at 587, 58 So. at 933 (quoting
Birmingham
Water Works
Co.
V.
Martini,
2 Ala. App. 652, 657, 56 So. 830, 832 (1911 )).
47
Id
. at 589, 58 So. 934.
46
9 Exch. 341 (1854).
49
Id
. at 354.
sc>
Restatement (Second)
of
Contracts §351 (2008).
31
./I
a(
fie
ld
, 100 Idaho at 848, 606 P.2d at 952.
52
Whaley, supra note 7 at 953.
53
The Knot Inc
.,
littp:
//
www.marketwatch.com/story/the-knot-unveils-
2009-real-weddings-survey-results-20 I 0-02-17.
541d.
55
Griffin-
Amiel
v.
Frank
Terris Orchestras,
178
Misc.
2d
71, 74,
677
N.
Y.S2d
908
,
910(1998).
