Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 20.08.1981 333/81 AI generated

Court dismisses claim for damages in failed engagement due to cohabitation under marriage law.

Case Number Vaasan HO 20.08.1981 333/81
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from a failed engagement. Although the parties cohabited for nearly two years in a marriage-like relationship before the engagement ended, the court found no legal basis for compensation. Consequently, the plaintiff could not be held liable for damages under the relevant marriage law provision.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Avioliittolain 9 §:n nojalla; If parties cohabited in a marriage-like relationship prior to the termination of an engagement, the party seeking damages cannot be held liable for compensation under the marriage law.

Keywords

AI generated
failed engagement damages marriage-like cohabitation compensation liability marriage law provision termination of engagement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Avioliittolain 9 §
Koska kihlakumppanit ennen kihlauksen purkautumista olivat lähes kahden vuoden ajan eläneet avioliiton omaisessa suhteessa, miestä ei katsottu voitavan velvoittaa suorittamaan kihlakumppanilleen hyvitystä avioliittolain 9 §:n nojalla.
AI generated
appeal_1984_eastern-finland__820
Court reduces child support during cohabitation to lower amount than original agreement.
kho-other_2016_5136
Supreme Administrative Court annuls lower court decisions and orders release of deceased population data for newspaper publication.
kko-other_2012_1616
Supreme Court dismisses appeal when legal interest in challenging lower court decision ceases to exist.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2021:37
Supreme Court dismisses adoption confirmation decision revocation by deceased adoptee's biological child lacking standing.
kko-precedent_2003_55
Supreme Court annuls document death ruling because applicant could not reasonably rely on document being in their possession.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Asianosaisten kihlaus oli purkautunut pätevästä aiheesta, jota ei voitu lukea kummankaan kihlakumppanin syyksi. Koska kihlakumppanit ennen kihlauksen purkautumista olivat lähes kahden vuoden ajan eläneet avioliiton omaisessa suhteessa, miestä ei katsottu voitavan velvoittaa suorittamaan kihlakumppanilleen hyvitystä avioliittolain 9 §:n nojalla.

Ks. Rautiala: Avioliitto-oikeus, s. 31-34

Toiseen suuntaan menevät HelHO:n ja I-SHO:n

ratkaisut, ks. Mahkonen, Sami: Avoliitto, s. 64.

Vammala 1984.

Lainvoimainen