Ureneck v. Cui
Massachusetts Appeals Court
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
- Boynton v. HubbardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Duval v. . WellmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Anderson v. GoinsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1945
- Morrison v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Singh v. SinghOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ureneck v. Ping CuiSupreme Court of the United States · 2004