[Traum]

$16,000 engagement ring at centre of bitter battle between former fiances Jessica Bennett, Pasquale Angelino Zampieri | CTV News (http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-lawsuit-over-engagement-ring-turns-nasty-outside-courthouse-1.1462911)

I dunno if it is bad manners on my part or not, but as I watched the video, I just couldn't stop laughing...:awwyeah:

[parm104]

LOL awesome...wish there was more!

The will go back to the man...Golddigger should just renew her POF profile and find another sucker.

[Lomac]

Engaged after three weeks? :facepalm:

[parm104]

Engaged after three weeks? :facepalm:

When you know...you know. :fullofwin:....errrrr...

[dinosaur]

So fucking pathetic.

Give the ring back, move on. Who wants to hang onto something from a past relationship...it will prevent both of them from moving on....this is the reason I gave mine back.

How could I move on if I still had it? Even though he was the one who cheated, left me with a house that was being built, 1000s in debt and I really could have used the money....it wasn't worth it.

[dvst8]

together forever XOXO 143 <3

[GLOW]

So fucking pathetic.

Give the ring back, move on. Who wants to hang onto something from a past relationship...


i can give you 16,500 reasons why...

:troll:

couldn't get a kidney, keep a ring! :badpokerface:

Kanye West - Gold Digger ft. Jamie Foxx - YouTube

[bcedhk]

lol another POF success

[pinn3r]

aged 46 & 27 :pokerface:

[bcedhk]

dude probably wanted to bang the girl, girl probably only says "no sex till marriage"

Gets married, girl runs away with ring

[Manic!]

dude probably wanted to bang the girl, girl probably only says "no sex till marriage"

Gets married, girl runs away with ring

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1196967680/hF3DCD348/

[duy-]

dude probably wanted to bang the girl, girl probably only says "no sex till marriage"

Gets married, girl runs away with ring

like dis if u kry evrytim

[Lomac]

like dis if u kry evrytim

Keep that stupid shit off of RS. Worst. Internet. Fad. Ever.

[StylinRed]

27? :suspicious:

[Noir]

$16,000 ring for a girl this geezer met within 3 weeks time? Sounds like he was trying to buy a wife.

Doesn't matter if she's a gold digger, if you treat women like a commodity, then I kinda don't feel bad he got "owned" instead. :lol

[westopher]

Keep that stupid shit off of RS. Worst. Internet. Fad. Ever.
Mad cuz u cry evrtim?:pokerface:

[Manic!]

$16,000 ring for a girl this geezer met within 3 weeks time? Sounds like he was trying to buy a wife.

Doesn't matter if she's a gold digger, if you treat women like a commodity, then I kinda don't feel bad he got "owned" instead. :lol

Looks like she was trying to get a kidney. Also she might be a pro. Will find out on Monday.

[Marshall Placid]

Interesting video.

The woman probably thought the man wouldn't sue her or go to court for that ring.

She guessed wrong.

Her legal bills will probably top the price of the ring.

I am assuming... and this is an assumption... that the man is just suing her for the principle of "return ring if not married".

The man really doesn't care about the cost of the ring.

He wants it back, based on principles, and is prepared to spend a lot on legal costs.

After all, I am sure he is spending more than $16,000+/- in legal fees.

For the guy, it's about the principle.

For the woman, I think she just wants to keep it and sell it, and took the risk that the man wouldn't sue her for it.

Or, it could be she is vindictive.

She mentions that she had $400k in debt in the video, and the article mentions she was 27 (truly, does she look 27? debatable).

There is an obvious motive here.

Why, oh why, did she want to keep the ring, from a guy that she detests?

Or, maybe, in addition to selling the ring, she is vindictive and wants to "hurt" the guy by keeping the ring.

Or... both vindictive AND wanted to sell the ring.

Either way, the winners of the battle royale are........ the lawyers.

[parm104]

Interesting video.

The woman probably thought the man wouldn't sue her or go to court for that ring.

She guessed wrong.

Her legal bills will probably top the price of the ring.

I am assuming... and this is an assumption... that the man is just suing her for the principle of "return ring if not married".

The man really doesn't care about the cost of the ring.

He wants it back, based on principles, and is prepared to spend a lot on legal costs.

After all, I am sure he is spending more than $16,000+/- in legal fees.

For the guy, it's about the principle.

For the woman, I think she just wants to keep it and sell it, and took the risk that the man wouldn't sue her for it.

Or, it could be she is vindictive.

She mentions that she had $400k in debt in the video, and the article mentions she was 27 (truly, does she look 27? debatable).

There is an obvious motive here.

Why, oh why, did she want to keep the ring, from a guy that she detests?

Or, maybe, in addition to selling the ring, she is vindictive and wants to "hurt" the guy by keeping the ring.

Or... both vindictive AND wanted to sell the ring.

Either way, the winners of the battle royale are........ the lawyers.

Nice.

Poem.

bro....

[DragonChi]

Interesting video.

The woman probably thought the man wouldn't sue her or go to court for that ring.

She guessed wrong.

Her legal bills will probably top the price of the ring.

I am assuming... and this is an assumption... that the man is just suing her for the principle of "return ring if not married".

The man really doesn't care about the cost of the ring.

He wants it back, based on principles, and is prepared to spend a lot on legal costs.

After all, I am sure he is spending more than $16,000+/- in legal fees.

For the guy, it's about the principle.

For the woman, I think she just wants to keep it and sell it, and took the risk that the man wouldn't sue her for it.

Or, it could be she is vindictive.

She mentions that she had $400k in debt in the video, and the article mentions she was 27 (truly, does she look 27? debatable).

There is an obvious motive here.

Why, oh why, did she want to keep the ring, from a guy that she detests?

Or, maybe, in addition to selling the ring, she is vindictive and wants to "hurt" the guy by keeping the ring.

Or... both vindictive AND wanted to sell the ring.

Either way, the winners of the battle royale are........ the lawyers.

Civil suits are anything below 25k. They can represent themselves.

[Marshall Placid]

Civil suits are anything below 25k. They can represent themselves.

Good point.

They can.

In reality:
The guy has a lawyer, as shown in the video.

The woman, quote (in the video) "until she hires another lawyer" for next week.

[AppleSugary]

Lol. While watching the video, I can tell already she's a gold digger cunt
Posted via RS Mobile

[Majestic12]

Civil suits are anything below 25k. They can represent themselves.

Small claims is anything under 25k, not a civil claim. A civil claim can be anything from the smallest amount to billions of dollars.

[urrh]

27 my ass. she looks 40

[KO7]

dude probably wanted to bang the girl, girl probably only says "no sex till marriage"

Gets married, girl runs away with ring

Your quote just reminds me that there really is a Fresh Prince episode for everything. Well minus the runs away with ring part.

[BoostedBB6]

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?

[GLOW]

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:

[dinosaur]

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?

[subordinate]

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.

[dinosaur]

Her neon pink business suit is pretty hot.

[Timpo]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/218/530/wtf_is_this_shit_Very_Disturbing_Childrens_Book_RE _We_dont_say_ampquotGermanampquot_in_America-s400x297-59009.jpg

[XplicitLuder]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/218/530/wtf_is_this_shit_Very_Disturbing_Childrens_Book_RE _We_dont_say_ampquotGermanampquot_in_America-s400x297-59009.jpg

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

[Timpo]

27?

talk about misrepresentation of age

[Timpo]

27? :suspicious:
27 my ass. she looks 40

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

[dinosaur]

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?

[nma]

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...

[punkwax]

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

[dinosaur]

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...

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.

[Harvey Specter]

Good ol' POF, lol.

[FerrariEnzo]

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

[duy-]

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.


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"

[dinosaur]

this is probably where most people disagree with you, including spence diamonds.

:lawl:

[punkwax]

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.

[dinosaur]

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.

[parm104]

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?

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....

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.

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

[duy-]

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.

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)

[dinosaur]

"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.

[parm104]

As for the argument that it is part and parcel of a binding contract, I am going to have to disagree..

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 what [I]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.

[StylinRed]

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

[bloodline129]

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

[Pegacorn]

He found someone he thought was better than he could ever do and wanted to lock that shit down. Kinda sweet really. I feel bad for the guy and I don't think she can do any better. I hope these two crazy kids work it out, they seem so full of passion.

[vitaminG]

shes actually 37

Battle over $16K engagement ring becomes reality TV during court break (http://www.theprovince.com/news/Battle+over+engagement+ring+becomes+reality+during +court+break/8934489/story.html)

The pair appeared in B.C. Supreme Court Thursday, with Zampieri, 46, sitting on one side of the courtroom with his lawyer, and Bennett, 37, sitting on the other side, without a lawyer.

[xilley]

Would bang.

[dinosaur]

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

who me? nah, I gave that shit back even though he was the one to cheat and blow shit up. Why would I want it...

Most of you have the idea I am some super vindictive bitch...its all a rumor.

[Noir]

If you've been married for X amount of years, and the marriage ends up being dissolved, should the ex-husband get his ring back?


:lol Indian givers.



Besides, I have no problems with gold diggers; most of the time, it's the guys themselves who you allow themselves to get dug.

[parm104]

who me? nah, I gave that shit back even though he was the one to cheat and blow shit up. Why would I want it...

Most of you have the idea I am some super vindictive bitch...its all a rumor.

I think it's more of a general vibe than a rumour ......


kidding! :S

[Marshall Placid]

In my opinion, it sounds like an agreement, and it's a tradition for ring giving for a proposal.

However, it's not a binding contractual agreement.

By law, to the best of my knowledge, the woman does not need to give the ring back to the man.

Unless, the man said, specifically:
"Will you marry me? I will give you this ring if you marry me".

I don't think he said that.

He probably implied, through the proposal, that he would give the ring, by slipping on the ring after the girl said yes.

But, the guy did not specifically say "I will give you this ring if you marry me."

Regardless, nothing was ever recorded during the proposal, so it is his words against hers and vice versa.

The guy has a low probability of winning.

So, I think dinosaur is correct.

I just think the guy should man up and forget the whole thing.

It is bringing him bad publicity for himself, if he wants to date again at the online dating site (I believe it was Plenty of Fish that he mentioned).

[Majestic12]

That's not really how the law works. There is such a thing as implied contract, which is binding based heavily on conduct, and which would be the case here. The ring was clearly offered to her, but the question that's before the court is whether it was offered strictly as a gift (and therefore should stay with her), or as consideration of a promise (aka a contractual agreement) on her behalf to marry the guy. Obviously, the guy is saying that is the case, and since the agreement was dissolved, the ring should go back to him.

There's no need to specifically say anything, or have anything recorded on paper, on tape, or otherwise. It'd be easier, obviously, but definitely not necessary.

[dinosaur]

I think it's more of a general vibe than a rumour ......


kidding! :S

:pokerface:

:fullofwin:

[dvst8]

Women will side with the girl and Men will always side with the guy. Simply because men can relate with each other. Same goes with women.

He'll get his ring back if the judge is male. Screwed if female.

[parm104]

Women will side with the girl and Men will always side with the guy. Simply because men can relate with each other. Same goes with women.

He'll get his ring back if the judge is male. Screwed if female.

Yup. Can't believe you discovered the best kept secret of the system!!! You beat it man!

[AppleSugary]

Zampieri alleges Bennett$left him and took the ring with her.The ring has been kept in a safety deposit box under Bennett's control.Today, the judge ordered her to place the hotly sought after symbol of love in the care of her lawyer.

from sept 27 news
Posted via RS Mobile

[EliteResearcher]

Oh my....