If Things Fall Apart, Who Gets the Ring?

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

I would have to agree with this. "If I give you this, will you do this for me?" Looks and sounds like a contract.

That it's a contract based on love doesn't change that it's a contract.

Ah, but if it were a contract, the issue of the ring would be covered under contract law. Even in states that consider it a conditional gift, as I recall, there is no consideration of "engagement" as a legal contracted state.

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

Ah, but if it were a contract, the issue of the ring would be covered under contract law. Even in states that consider it a conditional gift, as I recall, there is no consideration of "engagement" as a legal contracted state.

I'd say that this has more to do with the fact that most engagements are oral contracts, which of course aren't worth the shattered dreams they're all ultimately made of.*

I'd imagine that if the terms of engagement were written down and signed by both parties, it would be viewed as a contract.

*Just a bit cynical today. Why do you ask?

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

I'd say that this has more to do with the fact that most engagements are oral contracts, which of course aren't worth the shattered dreams they're all ultimately made of.*
*Just a bit cynical today. Why do you ask?

Little bit, huh?

I'd imagine that if the terms of engagement were written down and signed by both parties, it would be viewed as a contract.

I don't know how they do things up there in Canadia, but here (or at least in most states), oral contracts are legally enforceable. The problem is getting both parties to corroborate what the contract entailed. An engagement, I would think, would be pretty straight forward.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

Ah, but if it were a contract, the issue of the ring would be covered under contract law. Even in states that consider it a conditional gift, as I recall, there is no consideration of "engagement" as a legal contracted state.

Which is why I said it was a social, rather than legal contract. It is not legally binding, anymore than telling your friend you will help him move if he helps you paint your living room is legally binding. They are both contracts, though.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by geminilee

Which is why I said it was a social, rather than legal contract. It is not legally binding, anymore than telling your friend you will help him move if he helps you paint your living room is legally binding. They are both contracts, though.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/con...its-actua.html

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

I don't know how they do things up there in Canadia, but here (or at least in most states), oral contracts are legally enforceable.

Up here in Canadia, we make fun of people who can't spell Canada.

I'm not too sure on oral contract laws in Canada, but I'd imagine similar rules would apply -- if you can prove there was an oral contract. Which is the problem I was getting at earlier.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

Up here in Canadia, we make fun of people who can't spell Canada.

You're Canadian, right? Thus, from Canadia.

Don't hate on me; I don't make the rules.

[Ellestar]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

I would have to agree with this. "If I give you this, will you do this for me?" Looks and sounds like a contract.

That it's a contract based on love doesn't change that it's a contract.

Are engagement rings really what a man (or whomever, I guess) uses to buy the promise of marriage in the future, though?

In my case, my SO and I got engaged. I liked the idea of something physical that symbolized the promise already made that one of us could wear (I even offered to buy him an engagement ring or watch, which he politely refused). If we hadn't gotten married, I doubt I would have kept the ring, but not because a promise was broken, but because what the ring was supposed to symbolize no longer existed. I didn't exchange my promise to marry him for the ring. There was no such give and take. There was a promise by each of us to marry in the future that I can see being an oral contract, but the ring only symbolized that promise and I would have promised to marry my SO even if he didn't give me a ring.

The ring, for my relationship at least, was only an incidental part of our agreement, not the thing bartered for a promise.

Personally, I think that if engagement rings were family heirlooms, they should stay within whichever family volunteered it. Otherwise, I'll agree with others that it should go to the person who didn't call off the marriage. If calling off the marriage was a mutual decision, it should go back to the person who bought the ring. But that's just my personal opinion.

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

You're Canadian, right? Thus, from Canadia.

Don't hate on me; I don't make the rules.

You just make them up. Gotcha.

Originally Posted by Ellestar

Are engagement rings really what a man (or whomever, I guess) uses to buy the promise of marriage in the future, though?

I would say it's the physical symbol of that. As in, I'm not just giving you this ring because I can; I'm giving it to you because I want something back from you -- namely, marriage.

There was a promise by each of us to marry in the future that I can see being an oral contract, but the ring only symbolized that promise and I would have promised to marry my SO even if he didn't give me a ring.

But that's not the point. The fact that a ring was exchanged makes it, IMO, a conditional gift -- whether you would have married without the ring is irrelevant, since there was a ring.

[htonl]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

Ah, but if it were a contract, the issue of the ring would be covered under contract law. Even in states that consider it a conditional gift, as I recall, there is no consideration of "engagement" as a legal contracted state.

This is probably true in most of the US at the current time. However, in the past it would have been possible to sue for damages for the tort of "breach of promise", which seems to imply that engagement is a legal contract. The tort still exists, and is sued for, in some common-law jurisdictions, including South Africa. Indeed, it still exists in at least one US state.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Nick Theodorakis

Maybe I'm dense, but why is it a problem?

Nick

I can think of a few reasons why it might be:

1. Lizzy didn't want the visible symbol of her engagement to be intimately associated with an earlier, failed engagement.
2. Lizzy didn't want the visible symbol of her engagement to be intimately associated with her fiance's previous fiancee.
3. Lizzy knew that her fiance had picked out the previous ring with said previous fiancee in mind, and thought it was inappropriate that the same ring be offered to another woman (Lizzy).

Some women wouldn't mind, but many would. It's not just a piece of jewelry: it has symbolic significance.

[Nick Theodorakis]

Originally Posted by Lainie

I can think of a few reasons why it might be:

1. Lizzy didn't want the visible symbol of her engagement to be intimately associated with an earlier, failed engagement.
2. Lizzy didn't want the visible symbol of her engagement to be intimately associated with her fiance's previous fiancee.
3. Lizzy knew that her fiance had picked out the previous ring with said previous fiancee in mind, and thought it was inappropriate that the same ring be offered to another woman (Lizzy).

Some women wouldn't mind, but many would. It's not just a piece of jewelry: it has symbolic significance.

So it's wrong because one of the parties involved thinks it's wrong, not because of some intrinsic "wrong-ness" that should be obvious to the ring-offeror?

Nick

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Nick Theodorakis

So it's wrong because one of the parties involved thinks it's wrong, not because of some intrinsic "wrong-ness" that should be obvious to the ring-offeror?

Nick

I think the wrongness of regifting an engagement ring would be pretty evident to many.

[CannonFodder]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

I think the wrongness of regifting an engagement ring would be pretty evident to many.

Even I could catch on to that one. And I'm as dense as they come, sociallly.

[Nick Theodorakis]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

I think the wrongness of regifting an engagement ring would be pretty evident to many.

If it was an heirloom, for example, wouldn't it already be re-gifted?

I get that people think it's "wrong," but I am trying to figure out why it is intrinsically wrong.

Nick

[Nonny Mouse]

Originally Posted by Nick Theodorakis

So it's wrong because one of the parties involved thinks it's wrong, not because of some intrinsic "wrong-ness" that should be obvious to the ring-offeror?

Nick

It's wrong because offering the same engagement ring to two different women treats the women as though they're interchangeable.

Nonny

[Phantom]

This is a tough question, and the idea of what to do with the ring may vary from person to person... thus the reason why the legal eagles often get it.

IMHO, the person that paid for the ring should get it back, unless there was something completely heinous on hir part that caused the breakup, or if there was a financial debt that the ring would help cancel out.

Out of curiosity, was I the only person who gave hubby an engagement ring? He doesn't wear any rings at all now, since they get damaged at work. I tease him and tell him he's looking for an excuse to tomcat.

One of my (male) friends has a simple 'promise' ring, like an engagement to get engaged. It's a sweet thought.

[Nick Theodorakis]

Originally Posted by Nonny Mouse

It's wrong because offering the same engagement ring to two different women treats the women as though they're interchangeable.

Nonny

I don't follow. To me, it's as much as a non-sequitir as saying "offering a woman a store-bought ring treats the woman as if she's a commodity."

Nick

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by Nick Theodorakis

To me, it's as much as a non-sequitir as saying "offering a woman a store-bought ring treats the woman as if she's a commodity."

Not quite. Rings are supposed to be custom-purchased. I think you can get around the heirloom bit by realizing that the proposer had no intention of marrying his now deceased great-grandmother, and that this ring serves as a welcome to our family-type engagement ring (in addition to the whole let's get married thing).

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

Not quite. Rings are supposed to be custom-purchased. I think you can get around the heirloom bit by realizing that the proposer had no intention of marrying his now deceased great-grandmother, and that this ring serves as a welcome to our family-type engagement ring (in addition to the whole let's get married thing).

I think an heirloom ring should be treated differently from a bought-by-the-potential-fiance ring, too, for whatever its worth.

A person doesn't just save up money to buy an engagement ring to have on hand just in case they happen to run across fiancee material. It should, I hope, be purchased with the intended recipient in mind.