Which of the following statements regarding an engagement is/are incorrect?

Question

a) In Van Jaarsveld v Bridges 2010 (4) SA 558 (SCA) the court abolished the claim for
satisfaction based on contumelia
b) In Van Jaarsveld v Bridges 2010 (4) SA 558 (SCA) the court suggested that there
is no reason why the mere fact that one party no longer desires to marry the other
should not qualify as a iusta causa for terminating an engagement
c) In Van Jaarsveld v Bridges 2010 (4) SA 558 (SCA) the court found that Ms Bridges
was not entitled to a claim for damages based on breach of promise
d) In Van Jaarsveld v Bridges 2010 (4) SA 558 (SCA) the court found that breach of
promise may be enforced by an order for specific performance
e) statements (a) and (d) are incorrect

Answer 1

e) statements (a) and (d) are incorrect