Engagement ring k/csd question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
BeaverHunter
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:05 am

Engagement ring k/csd question

Postby BeaverHunter » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:10 pm

So here's the situation. Couple gets engaged, girl gets expensive diamond ring. They sign a contract stating that if he breaks it off, he gets the ring back but she gets 5k. If she breaks it off, she gets nothing.

All I could find on westlaw was that the engagement ring is generally considered a conditional gift and the not happening of the condition is "no fault". I'm thinking that unless there was reliance on the 5k, that there is no K above because there is no consideration or mutuality of obligation (she doesn't do or forego anything, just collects). Am I missing anything?
Last edited by BeaverHunter on Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BlueDiamond
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: K/consideration hypothetical

Postby BlueDiamond » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:13 pm

it is december 29th.. school is not even in session.. go away!

BeaverHunter
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:05 am

Re: K/consideration hypothetical

Postby BeaverHunter » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:20 pm

Lowly 1L here, the guy in the hypothetical is a friend of mine, so this is a practical application. I think he's dumb, both for getting married and for making the "contract".

sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: K/consideration hypothetical

Postby sparty99 » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:21 pm

If the guy breaks it off, he will argue that it is a conditional gift and a contract was not intended. Additionally, he would argue that the courts should not intefere with this type of contract, because of policy reasons. Imagine the "floodgates" that would occur if the courts had to waste their time with pre-marital contracts. The guy would cite cases where the courts have been reluctant to examine family cases.

If the guy broke it off, the girl will argue that this falls under the UCC since the ring is a good. Under the UCC, acceptance/offer is more lenient and can be made any manner...The ring could be considered "consideration." I guess there is other stuff you could argue. Of course, always argue both sides.

BeaverHunter
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:05 am

Re: K/consideration hypothetical

Postby BeaverHunter » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:30 pm

sparty99 wrote:If the guy breaks it off, he will argue that it is a conditional gift and a contract was not intended. Additionally, he would argue that the courts should not intefere with this type of contract, because of policy reasons.


Why on earth would he do that? He wouldn't want the K enforced because it was a conditional gift. If the K is enforceable he would owe 5k, unenforceable he gets the ring back and doesn't have to pay.

I'm not asking about whether a ring is a conditional gift, that seems well settled. I'm asking if a written k for payment if an engagement is broken has mutuality of obligation.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: K/consideration hypothetical

Postby Extension_Cord » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:02 am

BeaverHunter wrote:
sparty99 wrote:If the guy breaks it off, he will argue that it is a conditional gift and a contract was not intended. Additionally, he would argue that the courts should not intefere with this type of contract, because of policy reasons.


Why on earth would he do that? He wouldn't want the K enforced because it was a conditional gift. If the K is enforceable he would owe 5k, unenforceable he gets the ring back and doesn't have to pay.

I'm not asking about whether a ring is a conditional gift, that seems well settled. I'm asking if a written k for payment if an engagement is broken has mutuality of obligation.


Just take the ring when shes sleeping then break it off. Dweeb.

sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: K/consideration hypothetical

Postby sparty99 » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:11 am

BeaverHunter wrote:
sparty99 wrote:If the guy breaks it off, he will argue that it is a conditional gift and a contract was not intended. Additionally, he would argue that the courts should not intefere with this type of contract, because of policy reasons.


Why on earth would he do that? He wouldn't want the K enforced because it was a conditional gift. If the K is enforceable he would owe 5k, unenforceable he gets the ring back and doesn't have to pay.

I'm not asking about whether a ring is a conditional gift, that seems well settled. I'm asking if a written k for payment if an engagement is broken has mutuality of obligation.



Um, that is basically what I just said. Anyway, I'm over this topic. The guy is an idiot for making a contract out of an engagement ring and if he is not paying you for legal advice then you should not care either. Okay, thanks.

User avatar
NoleinNY
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Engagement ring k/csd question

Postby NoleinNY » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:18 am

BeaverHunter wrote:So here's the situation. Couple gets engaged, girl gets expensive diamond ring. They sign a contract stating that if he breaks it off, he gets the ring back but she gets 5k. If she breaks it off, she gets nothing.

All I could find on westlaw was that the engagement ring is generally considered a conditional gift and the not happening of the condition is "no fault". I'm thinking that unless there was reliance on the 5k, that there is no K above because there is no consideration or mutuality of obligation (she doesn't do or forego anything, just collects). Am I missing anything?
My friend is an idiot.


FTFY

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: Engagement ring k/csd question

Postby Veyron » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:24 am

Why would anyone make such a contract.

nymario
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: Engagement ring k/csd question

Postby nymario » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:26 am

In New York, if the engagement is broken prior to the wedding, he gets the ring back, full stop. In some jurisdictions you don't. It just depends.

Parties can contract around the default rule if they'd like...

BeaverHunter
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:05 am

Re: K/consideration hypothetical

Postby BeaverHunter » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:37 am

sparty99 wrote:
BeaverHunter wrote:
sparty99 wrote:If the guy breaks it off, he will argue that it is a conditional gift and a contract was not intended. Additionally, he would argue that the courts should not intefere with this type of contract, because of policy reasons.


Why on earth would he do that? He wouldn't want the K enforced because it was a conditional gift. If the K is enforceable he would owe 5k, unenforceable he gets the ring back and doesn't have to pay.

I'm not asking about whether a ring is a conditional gift, that seems well settled. I'm asking if a written k for payment if an engagement is broken has mutuality of obligation.



Um, that is basically what I just said. Anyway, I'm over this topic. The guy is an idiot for making a contract out of an engagement ring and if he is not paying you for legal advice then you should not care either. Okay, thanks.


Oh, you're over it. Sorry to have bothered you then.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests