Legal Opinion

Ureneck v. Cui

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided November 4, 2003No. 02-P-623PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtKafker, J.

The question presented is whether an international matchmaking services agreement providing for the payment of $7,500 following the marriage of the defendant, Ping Cui, to a person introduced to her by Rainbow International Marriage Service Incorporated (Rainbow), is enforceable.1 We conclude that the agreement is a marriage brokerage contract void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy.

This breach of contract action was presented to the District Court “as a case stated,” based on the following undisputed facts: Rainbow, a Massachusetts company directed and operated by the plaintiff,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Boynton v. HubbardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
  2. Duval v. . WellmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  3. Anderson v. GoinsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1945
  4. Morrison v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Singh v. SinghOhio Court of Appeals · 1992

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Ureneck v. Ping CuiSupreme Court of the United States · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API