Psaltis v Schultz

In *Psaltis v Schultz*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning a breach of promise of marriage. The plaintiff, Jessie Boyd Schultz, sued the defendant, George Victor Psaltis, for damages. The central dispute revolved around a promise to marry made by the defendant to the plaintiff at a time when the plaintiff was still legally married, although a decree nisi for divorce had been pronounced in her favour.

The legal issues before the court were whether a promise to marry made by a person who has obtained a decree nisi for divorce, but before the decree absolute, is valid and enforceable. Specifically, the court had to determine if such a promise was contrary to public policy, and whether it required an express or implied term that the marriage would only take place after the decree absolute, particularly in circumstances where one or both parties were unaware of the precise legal requirements for remarriage.

The High Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, holding that a promise to marry made after a decree nisi but before a decree absolute is not contrary to public policy and is valid. The court reasoned that the decision in *Fender v. St. John-Mildmay* established that such promises are enforceable, even if the parties were unaware that the decree absolute was still required. A promise to marry without a specified time is understood as a promise to marry within a reasonable time upon request. The court found that the jury's findings did not establish a mutual mistake that would invalidate the contract, nor did they demonstrate a lack of readiness or willingness on the plaintiff's part to perform the agreement, given the defendant's anticipatory breach.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Supreme Court's judgment which entered judgment for the plaintiff for £500 in damages.