It's long past "plans" then there is no return.
Woman seeks $62,814 from ex-fiance
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
No, my solution is to simply pay back what you caused. The reality is an engagement is a verbal contract that this kid broke. And if he married then divorced in a week, he'd still owe the money. I could care less whether it is "legally" or not, morally the guy owes her the money.
Again, she isn't going to marry the guy because he's been wandering into disease land following his gonads, this is a condition of the engagement contract. It's stupid to say he could "just marry her"... It isn't an option. She spent that money with due expectation that he would keep the contract. He didn't.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
its not a contract. period. you can try and call it that all day long but it won't make it so. you would have us have the ability to haul anyone in court who broke a promise in affairs of the heart. such is a dangerous intrusion into our private lives. yes, morally, he should pay it back, i already said that. you're arguing that we should give the government power of that aspect of our lives and that is a gross intrusion on matters of the heart.
then to bad for her. if she won't marry him, but he is willing to marry her, she has zero claim. your claim of disease is wholly unfounded and is intended as an emotional appeal to help this girl win her case. its beneath you. good lord, you're advocating now that the courts and our states should legislate morality when it comes to affairs. why not just make them illegal and bring us back to the dark ages damo? put a scarlett letter on the guy.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
they are still plans until it happens. i could have the tickets line up, the hotel lined up and be driving to the airport for my planned vacation and get into a wreck, making it impossible for me to go on my planned vacation. wouldn't you say that my "plans" went awry because of the accident?
Not really, no other "promise of the heart" involves sealing the deal with a ring, or the planning and spending unrefundable money. If you can't keep your promise and keep the "little guy" from wandering around in disease-lan, then the moral thing to do is to break it off before they spend the money, but if they've already spent it you should pay it back.its not a contract. period. you can try and call it that all day long but it won't make it so. you would have us have the ability to haul anyone in court who broke a promise in affairs of the heart. such is a dangerous intrusion into our private lives. yes, morally, he should pay it back, i already said that. you're arguing that we should give the government power of that aspect of our lives and that is a gross intrusion on matters of the heart.
then to bad for her. if she won't marry him, but he is willing to marry her, she has zero claim. your claim of disease is wholly unfounded and is intended as an emotional appeal to help this girl win her case. its beneath you. good lord, you're advocating now that the courts and our states should legislate morality when it comes to affairs. why not just make them illegal and bring us back to the dark ages damo? put a scarlett letter on the guy.
And, IMO, in the case of weddings it should be required. She spent the money with a reasonable expectation it would be shared debt/loss. In this case she simply wants to enforce the "shared" expense. The guy should, at the very least pay back half. But IMO is morally obligated as the one who broke the verbal contract to pay it all.
Again, they aren't. There is a functional purchase when funds are unrefundable. You are past "planning" to spend the money.
Many companies/businesses can and do make allowances for emergency circumastances-if they do not the cost is on you.
I think the woman is entitled to recover any out of pocket costs-but should drop the infliction of pain amt. She should consider herself paid in full on that regard just from the knowing of what she has escaped from.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
What she said.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
the vacation is still planned. that is what the money is for.
should the airlines give you your money back? what if you simply decided you didn't want to go? should the airlines and the hotel give you your money back because you had a change of heart?
True. The "pain" part is not reasonable. One is taking on a certain amount of risk in that department when entering the engagement.
Airlines will almost always give you your money back, and when they will not tickets are trasnferable for a small fee. Weddings are not transferable, not even for a large fee. One can take their Maid/Matron of Honor on a wild trip to say Vegas and fill their life with irony, but one cannot instead marry their Maid/Matron of Honor.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
and you want the courts to enforce this morality. you will then have the exact situation i mentioned, where the guy or girl will simply go through the marriage just to avoid any liability for the costs and get a quick divorce a week later.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what? airline tickets are non refundable past a certain point unless you pay extra for refundable or transferrable tickets. also, hotels are non refundable unless you give notice, usually 24 hours or more.
you're setting dangerous precedent for the government to get involved in matters of the heart. in your world, people will need pre engagement "nuptials" in case of a change of heart. actually, this is good, maybe i should start advocating this as i could be make some good money off this
Courts can and do enforce verbal contracts if you have evidence of the contract. In this case there is more than enough evidence of the verbal agreement that he stepped out on. And again, there is no reasonable expectation that she would marry him after he broke the contract. They took on a shared debt/loss in accordance with a reasonable expectation of his ability to fulfill his part of the bargain. He was unable to do his part and broke the contract before the contract expired (the date of the ceremony that was paid for according to that same contract).
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
damo....there is no contract in an engagement. everyone knows that engagements are merely a promise to want to get married and engagements are broken all the time. the very purpose of the engagement period is to see if you are compatible. its ludicrous to hold people to a "contract" when its merely a promise they WANT to get married, but actually may not. that is the whole point of the engagement period, to wait and see if they actually want to get married.
do you have a different understanding of the engagement period?
It's not about a period of time to "see if you are comapatible". Engagements are betrothals i.e. promises to marry. Contractually speaking this woman does have a case.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
not in california
i've always understood engagements (in modern times) to be a promise to marry, but, also a period of time to make sure you both want to get married.
not in california
i've always understood engagements (in modern times) to be a promise to marry, but, also a period of time to make sure you both want to get married.
I am from California too yurt and I have never understood engagements to about "periods of time to see if you are comaptible"...that's what dating is for.
"An engagement is a promise to marry, and also the period of time between proposal and marriage – which may be lengthy or trivial. During this period, a couple is said to be affianced, betrothed, engaged to be married, or simply engaged. Future brides and grooms are often referred to as fiancées or fiancés respectively (from the French word fiancé). The duration of the courtship varies vastly.
Long engagements were once common in formal arranged marriages and it was not uncommon for parents betrothing children to arrange such many years before the engaged couple were old enough to marry. In 2007, the average engagement time in the United States was 17 months,[1] but the figure around the world varies greatly depending on culture and customs."
Not true, just as a marriage is a contract, so too is engagement. The agreement allows for reasonable expectation so that one can spend the money with assurance and should be paid back if the other wishes out of the more permanent contract without an expiry date, or if they fail to uphold the promise. Very few people spend this kind of money on this stuff without that assurance. Only that one lady who was on TV who "planned the perfect wedding" but simply never was engaged...
My point earlier is that he isn't just, IMO, legally obligated to pay back his portion of the costs of the nuptials, he is also morally obligated.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
damo...pleased find me any law that states an engagement is a contract. i can easily find you a plethora of law that states a marriage is a contract. you don't get an engagement license and you don't sign anything to get engaged. you have no legal rights to your fiance's property, its completely different than marriage. you don't have to go to court to break an engagement.
so far, the courts say you're wrong. at least in california. like i said, you advocate for an imperssible intrusion in our private lives. and most states are in agreement with california. it is not illegal to have an affair. she could still choose to marry him. people have done so before and even married people stay together. you're legislating people's sex lives.