Top Law Schools

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?

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

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Why would anyone make such a contract.

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...

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.