If your dumb enough to give a girl your with for 3 weeks a ring worth $16k then you deserve to lose that money.....why are there so many stupid people in this world?

some people are hopeless romantics thinking they can find instantly find "the one" and get swept off their feet...




jk...it's cuz they think with their dick :troll:

Y'all keep calling her a cunt and gold digger....what about the guy? buddy has bald short-man syndrome and thought he could buy a wife. I agree she should return the ring, but should he really walk away unscathed?

Easy there Dinosaur, She broke the contract. This is about her not him. :fullofwin:

Seriously though, it could be he really liked her and wanted to show her his love with a 16k engagement ring. At 46? He could just be pretty desperate for love/marriage/family.

I agree also, she isn't 27...if she is 27...she had some rough party days.

Her neon pink business suit is pretty hot.

That's what I say everytime I see your threads! :troll: oh wait wrong time..sorry ;)
Posted via RS Mobile

27?

talk about misrepresentation of age

she probably did some drugs.

tobacco, crystal meth, marijuana, cocaine, hashish, etc...any of those drugs tend to accelerate your aging by quite a lot

Ok...since some of you disagree with my post even though I said she should give it back....you guys think she should keep it?

Here is a related question....what happens with all other presents given during a relationship?

other pieces of jewellery? clothing? purses/wallets?
bigger items like cars?

Does the gift giver have the right to take back everything even though they were gifts?

no because those were gifts, where as a ring represents marriage, a verbal contract. Lawyer arguing that broken contract = return the ring. It's like imagine buying a car and putting in a downpayment. You ordered a porsche but instead they show you a civic. You expect your downpayment back.. I think that's what it kind of looks like here.. He thought she was a porsche, but instead she turns out to be a go-kart and keeps the downpayment. Best analogy I could come up with...

The way I see it, she shouldn't want to keep it. They haven't been together long, should consider herself lucky they didn't go through with the marriage and want to rid herself of anything that would remind her of the guy.

The fact she wants to keep it gives the impression that she's just a greedy bitch looking to cash in.

That being said, after watching that guys' lawyer attempt to speak... well.. he's pretty much fucked. The ring is hers :lol

I understand your logic....but IS that what an engagement ring is? IS an engagement ring a contract binding entity?

What happens when the giver "breaks" the contract? Would the giver forfeit the entity because her/she "broke" this unwritten contract?

Also, this ring isn't binding to anything....you can propose marriage without a ring. The ring is technically a gift...NOT the entity that binds the agreement of marriage.

I am just playing devil's advocate here....tbh, I don't think a judge will rule that she must return the ring...on an emotional level, she should...but technically I don't think she will have to.

Good ol' POF, lol.

shes nasty! he probably realized it after he slipped the ring on...

this is probably where most people disagree with you, including spence diamonds. although logically, your point makes more sense, i think most people see it as a binding contract which really cheapens the idea of an engagement ring. "this ring means my eternal love for you" vs "this ring means you're legally my property"

:lawl:

Man proposes to girl, girl says no. No ring for you. Girl says yes, she gets the ring. It's an agreement more than it is a gift.

so...if it is treated as a binding contract of promise to marry....can i sue my ex for not following though? emotional distress?

essentially he provided a contractual entity that i accepted.

I disagree with the part where you said "he shouldn't go unscathed." The relationship cost money already, he's paying legal bills, he's not going unscathed.

Jewelry, clothing and purses are not contractual objects, they are as you said "presents" or gifts. Gifts are not contractual. An engagement ring, a wedding ring, those are. If you want to look at it as a gift, then it is a conditional-gift...a gift given on the condition the two get married.

Offer: Will you marry me? ( I will give you this ring)

In return, I receive your hand in marriage.

Yes? Okay here is the ring....No? Okay no ring...

Simple. He's an idiot. She's an idiot. They are both equal idiots. They should both lose but giving her the ring puts her ahead where as giving back him his wrong, simply makes him whole again....

You can't sue for emotional distress because a contract was not fulfilled...Contracts are breach-able...and all you can sue for is to put you back in a position you were at before you went into the contract. emotional distress lol

its almost a form of male chivalry, so therefore it has to favor the male in the situation where the contract is broken. or at least it seems that way

shes not good enough, her fault, he gets the ring back
she was unfaithful, her fault, he gets the ring back
she left him, her fault, he gets the ring back

its also a very outdated legal agreement, in our day and age, why did you not buy him a ring? there's some equality for ya

the dude liked it so he put a ring on it, blame beyonce

edit:

just to be clear, my opinion is mostly in reference to this situation. after actually reading the entire 2nd page, if he cheats, the girl should keep the ring. because hes a douche and if anything he failed to keep his end of the contract (yeah i think being faithful is part of the whole being married thing)

"male chivalry" except when its lesbians...THEN what happens?? lol

This whole thing is stupid....the fact that it made the evening news and the paper is stupid.

As for the argument that it is part and parcel of a binding contract, I am going to have to disagree. A ring does not make you engaged...the answer the the question makes you engaged. It was his choice.....and like you said, he liked it (god knows why), so he put a ring on it, lol.

What happens if the marriage dissolved...do the rings go back then? if they were acquired prior to marriage but during engagement does the law view them as a joint acquisition? What is they were not together long enough to be classified as common law...what if there was no engagement...but they went straight to marriage. The possibilities are infinite...AND RETARDED.

I'm not trying to argue or anything and I see what you guys (most) are trying to say...I just view it differently. The only annoying this is that now I am going to have to pay attention to how it all ends because now I am curious and the last thing these trashy people deserve is more limelight.

I understand your argument, I respect your notions and I'm not going to agree or disagree. But the beauty here is that it doesn't matter [insert The Rock picture here] what you think... It's the law...And simple as that the law sees the engagement ring and wedding ring as a contractual item and that's all that matters.

Some courts will look at the events surrounding the divorce but most are in agreement that the ring is, as many have stated on this thread, a contractual object in anticipation of a duty to be fulfilled.

sounds like someone is trying to lay a defense for keeping their rings :whistle:

Haha this thread delivers, and them two better go visit judge morrey lol
Posted via RS Mobile