Debates
21 Apr 10
21 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFagreed. It's the polite thing to do, but one doesn't have to (it was a gift afterall)
A few Indonesians I posed this question to this morning sucked through their teeth a little before coming more or less to a consensus that she SHOULD give the ring back but doesn't HAVE to.
21 Apr 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasConditional gifts are not gifts at all, IMO.
"Boy [b]gives Girl the Ring."
I understand what it says.
But I don't think girl accepts ring if boy only lends it to girl.
If the OP really means "gives" when he writes "gives", then there wouldn't be any interesting answers, would it?
What symbolize the ring for you in this context, Palynka? Only a gift or perhaps something deeper?[/b]
21 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf you give something to someone, don't expect them to give it back. Your argument reduces to just wanting your money back. She's bought plenty of things for you (clothes, food, drinks etc) Does she expect you to pay back all the things she paid for?
Boy meets Girl. Boy and Girl develop a serious, multi year relationship. Boy proposes to Girl. Boy gives Girl the Ring.
Girl later alienates Boy via personality conflicts. Boy dumps Girl, who was living with him, and gets a restraining order put on her because he claims she wont leave him alone.
Is Girl supposed to give the Ring back to Boy?
Sounds like you are hung up on the cost of the ring. The dollar amount is irrelevant. You bought something for her. Live with it. If you can't, then pay her back for all the things she bought you.
The real question is WHY would she want to keep the ring? What is she going to do with it? Doubtful she'd actually wear it. So what, is she going to sell it? If she sells it, then count that as confirmation she's a wacko and think of the money you spent on it as the price you paid to find out she's crazy. Money well spent in my mind.
21 Apr 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungi think dear abby / dear ann would say she gets to keep the ring. it's been a while since i read that and i might be wrong.
Boy meets Girl. Boy and Girl develop a serious, multi year relationship. Boy proposes to Girl. Boy gives Girl the Ring.
Girl later alienates Boy via personality conflicts. Boy dumps Girl, who was living with him, and gets a restraining order put on her because he claims she wont leave him alone.
Is Girl supposed to give the Ring back to Boy?
it looks like the legal profession is making hay out of it (as usual).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring#Legal_ownership
Legal ownership
In some states of the United States, engagement rings are considered "conditional gifts" under the legal rules of property. This is an exception to the general rule that gifts cannot be revoked once properly given. See, for example, the case of Meyer v. Mitnick, 625 N.W.2d 136 (Michigan, 2001), whose ruling found the following reasoning persuasive: "the so-called 'modern trend' holds that because an engagement ring is an inherently conditional gift, once the engagement has been broken, the ring should be returned to the donor. Thus, the question of who broke the engagement and why, or who was 'at fault,' is irrelevant. This is the no-fault line of cases."
One case in New South Wales, Australia ended in the man suing his former fiancée because she threw the ring in the trash after he told her she could keep it, despite the marriage proposal failing. The Supreme Court of New South Wales held that despite what the man said, the ring remained a conditional gift (partly because his saying that she could keep it was partly due to his desire to salvage the relationship) and she was ordered to pay him its AUD$15,250 cost.[6]
Tradition generally holds that if the betrothal fails because the man himself breaks off the engagement, the woman is not obliged to return the ring. Legally, this condition can be subject to either a modified or a strict fault rule. Under the former, the fiancé can demand the return of the ring unless he breaks the engagement. Under the latter, the fiancé is entitled to the return unless his actions caused the breakup of the relationship, the same as the traditional approach. However, a no-fault rule is being advanced in some jurisdictions, under which the fiancé is always entitled to the return of the ring. The ring only becomes the property of the woman when marriage occurs. An unconditional gift approach is another possibility, wherein the ring is always treated as a gift, to be kept by the fiancée whether or not the relationship progresses to marriage. Recent court rulings have determined that the date in which the ring was offered can determine the condition of the gift. e.g. Valentine's Day and Christmas are nationally recognized as gift giving holidays. A ring offered in the form of a Christmas present will likely remain the personal property of the recipient in the event of a breakup.[7]
In the United Kingdom, the gift of an engagement ring is presumed to be an absolute gift to the fiancée. This presumption may be rebutted however by proving that the ring was given on condition (express or implied) that it must be returned if the marriage did not take place, for whatever reason. This was decided in the case Jacobs v Davis [1917] 2 KB 532.
21 Apr 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI would think so too.
The 'give' in this case is a token of the promise. The promise now broken, the symbol which represented it ought to return to its pre-promise owner. She could sue him for his breach of contract, and this has been done previously.
Most women end up keeping the ring in cases like this (as far as I have heard), and it seems to me they do so out of spite more than any emotional attachment otherwise.
If there isn't any more value than the price, and no promise at all to the future, then I could give another girl a ring of the same kind that I gave my fiancée. She would be mad, of course, and even end our relation. Which proves that to give a girl a ring brings more with it than the ring itself.
It's a ring of engagement. If girl dumps boy, then girls engagement in boy is nil. And therefore the ring should be returned to boy. I see it as quite simple question.
21 Apr 10
Originally posted by uzlessI think she sold it. He was supporting her beforehand. It was kind of like the traditional situation where the jewelry was her insurance, but she's also a feminist...one of those girls who wants the benefits of both.
If you give something to someone, don't expect them to give it back. Your argument reduces to just wanting your money back. She's bought plenty of things for you (clothes, food, drinks etc) Does she expect you to pay back all the things she paid for?
Sounds like you are hung up on the cost of the ring. The dollar amount is irrelevant. You bought som ...[text shortened]... spent on it as the price you paid to find out she's crazy. Money well spent in my mind.
21 Apr 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasBoy dumped girl.
I would think so too.
If there isn't any more value than the price, and no promise at all to the future, then I could give another girl a ring of the same kind that I gave my fiancée. She would be mad, of course, and even end our relation. Which proves that to give a girl a ring brings more with it than the ring itself.
It's a ring of engagement. If ...[text shortened]... y is nil. And therefore the ring should be returned to boy. I see it as quite simple question.
21 Apr 10
Originally posted by sh76Not quite true. If you look at inherited fortunes, possession is indeed what matters.
Well, that's just a cliche.
In real life, possession hardly matters in the eyes of the law.
The only difference possession may make is in allocating the burden of proof to the party not in possession.