“Contracts for dating or social mediation services that do not contain rules for payment on the basis of marriage are not contracts for conjugal mediation.” “Marital mediation contracts, although they are not fraudulent to either party, are nonetheless void because they are public nonsense, as they tend to have the marriage concluded according to erroneous principles. Despite the inevitable changes in social mores and marital intermediation since (1918), there are still many reasons to worry about the harmful trends in the world of international match-making and twenty-first century marriage brokerage contracts that follow this case. These concerns have only been reinforced when this activity is booming on the Internet. “Conjugal mediation contracts are defined as contracts by which a third person is paid for the negotiation, obtaining or establishment of a marriage. Traditionally, conjugal intermediation contracts are null and void because they are contrary to public order. “Although there is no decision on this issue in Massachusetts, the Supreme Court told Dikta that marital mediation contracts belong to the category of contracts that are contrary to public policy.” The harmful tendency of such contracts is such that their judicial application is denied, regardless of the adequacy or expediency of each marriage. You need to – there are over 200,000 words in our free online dictionary, but you`re looking for one that`s only listed in the Webster Merriam Unabridged Dictionary. These words were written by Judge Kafker of the Massachusetts Court of Appeals at Ureneck v Cui, quoting in part Story`s 1918 Commentaries on Justice Equity: Start your free trial today and get unlimited access to america`s largest dictionary, with: “Such contracts have been convicted and declared unenforceable in American jurisprudence without exception or ambiguity. . . .