The Offer
An offer is a statement or other act in which one person confers power on another to make a contract. In order to do so, the offeror must manifest his present intent to be bound in contract.
The query "Will you marry me?" is, on its face, ambiguous. It sounds more like an invitation to bargain than an offer to contract, similar to the query of "Will you sell...for the sum of $6000?" in Owen v. Tunison, 156 A. 926 (Sp. Ct. Me. 1932). In any other context it would likely be construed as such. If a salesman asks "Will you buy my vacuum?", that would fall well short of muster, if for nothing else than its total lack of specificity of terms.
However, for two reasons the phrase "will you marry me" makes a special case. First, in trade usage it is without exception treated as a valid offer to contract, met inevitably with either acceptance or rejection (we have found no case involving even a rejection and counter-offer).
Trade usage alone may be dispositive, but this usage is in fact a result of the unique nature of the engagement agreement. There is no spectrum of possible terms to be negotiated; in their absence the facially ambiguous "will you marry me" carries as much specificity as "Will you buy my 1964 Ford Falcon, the one with the primer spots and the leaky radiator, with all express and implied warranties including the implied warranty of merchantability, disclaimed, for $653.33 payable on delivery?"
The fact that the only possible responses are "yes" or "no" demonstrates the specificity of the terms, and therefore "Will you marry me" is a valid offer and not an invitation to bargain.
The Acceptance
What action or communication from the offeree brought the contract to fruit? The record indicates tears, followed several seconds later by a "yes." If tears alone could constitute a valid acceptance, the offeror would have lost his power of revocation; if not, he retained it until the affirmative oral communication. As he did not revoke, the point is moot, but some issues are raised.
The key issue is whether the tears were accompanied by the offeree taking physical possession of the offered material goods ("ring"). If she did not, tears would be insufficiently clear in meaning to a reasonable person, and would not constitute an acceptance. (If, however, the offeror subjectively had reason to believe that tears might indicate a particular answer, and this subjective belief could be proven in evidence, then tears could count as a valid acceptance or rejection.)
The record indicates that the offeree did take the ring box into her possession. This is still not dispositive, as tears are objectively ambiguous and will be treated as akin to a silent retention. If an offeree silently takes possession of goods, that in itself is not acceptance, unless it can be shown that the parties have a pre-existing, continuing business relationship from which acceptance can be implied. No evidence has been introduced of previous contracts of engagement or marriage between these parties. Therefore, tears were not a valid acceptance, and the offer remained open and revocable until the affirmative oral communication.
Structure of The Contract
It would appear that the contract between the parties is unilateral. I.e., the offeror specifically performed by delivering a ring, in exchange for a promise of marriage by the offeree. No express promise to marry is given by the offeror. Having specifically performed, he appears to no longer be bound by the contract, as he has given no promise to the offeree. Yet he retains a right of enforcement if the offeree breaches by refusing to marry him.
This can't be so. Surely no right-minded offeree would promise marriage merely in exchange for a ring. Some further consideration must have extracted her promise. Further, her ability to perform her promise would be completely impaired if the offeror created conditions preventing his being bound in marriage. Therefore, in the absence of an express promise on the part of the offeror, there must be found an implied promise to marry the offeree.
But the finding of this implied promise introduces yet another complication. It appears to be gratuitous, unsupported by any consideration. If the offeree's promise is given in consideration of the ring, what binds the offeror's promise? By a formalist approach, nothing. It is nudum pactum.
But such is the trouble with formality. As demonstrated above, the ring is not the complete consideration for the offeree's promise. In truth, it is not the consideration at all. It is a mere physical embodiment of the agreement, much like a writing down of terms. What the offeror genuinely offered, and what the offeree exchanged her promise for, was his own promise to marry, implied though it may have been. This promise was the consideration for the offeree's promise, and vice versa. The contract is in reality bilateral, a bargained-for exchange of promises.
Illusory Promises
Although, as demonstrated, the exchanged promises to marry are consideration for one another, and are therefore, to an extent, not gratuitous, they are unfortunately illusory. An illusory promise is one supported by consideration that nonetheless offers an escape route. In the case of Strong v. Sheffield, 144 N.Y. 392 (Ct. App. N.Y. 1895), a man accepted a promissory note on a debt in exchange for his promise not to cash it for an unspecified period of time. Because the period of forbearance was indefinite, the promise was held to be illusory. He could have cashed the note the following day.
The promises in the present case are similarly indefinite, although in an opposite temporal direction. Rather than setting no minimum, they set no maximum. A lifelong promise to marry, without ever agreeing on when to do so, is an illusory promise. Therefore, neither party is legally bound by or to their own promise. Since both promises are illusory, they are both worthless as consideration and are therefore gratuitous, after all. This contract is as solid as a wisp of smoke.
Conclusion
I need a long break from school.
___________________
Fine Print
This post is a mere intellectual exercise and in no way indicates second thoughts.