Facts
This case concerns a dispute between Mr. and B. regarding claims arising from a broken engagement. The Federal Tribunal had to determine whether an engagement contract had actually been concluded between the parties. The established facts show that the parties did promise each other marriage, but it was only on a later date, April 19, 1949, that they exchanged mutual promises of marriage, thus constituting an engagement contract within the meaning of Art. 90 CC. Prior to that date, there was no engagement, despite discussions between the parties. Consequently, the plaintiff's claims based on a breach of engagement cannot relate to events prior to April 19, 1949.Considerations
The Federal Tribunal recalls that according to the prevailing case law and doctrine, there is an engagement only in the case of mutual promises of marriage. A unilateral commitment, even if it may have certain legal effects such as in matters of filiation (Art. 323 CC), is not…