Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
let's see what else that wiki article says:
i disagree on the historical. i know many who consider an extended trial period, along with a promise to marry. that is why many put it out for half a year or so.
Woman seeks $62,814 from ex-fiance
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
let's see what else that wiki article says:
i disagree on the historical. i know many who consider an extended trial period, along with a promise to marry. that is why many put it out for half a year or so.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Meh, its basically another classic woman-basher thread without Darla to call everyone out...
christiefan915
Catalyst
The engagement and the wedding expenses are two different things. She wasn't planning that wedding in a vacuum. The two got engaged and over the space of a year they planned and she made payments on a wedding. The wedding was for both of them, not just her. He went along with all the plans in the year of the engagement and in fact, attended a bachelor party and a shower.
He's responsible for at least half the costs.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Are you saying that he "tripped and fell into the pussy"; as in Richard Pryor?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
do you know what an analogy is?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
He can have the dress and throw a party for all his buddies.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Do you understand that you're attempting to equate something occuring because of an accident and the guy knowingly fucking someone while he was engaged and a wedding was planned??
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
yes, you obviously don't know what an analogy is.
maybe i should simplify things for you:
he got drunk, got a dui, spent the night in the drunk tank, missed his flight
happy now
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
A good friend of mine finalized his divorce two months ago. His ex filed for it. They were negotiating the "stuff", and she brings out a long list: all the furniture, kitchen ware, appliances, exercise equipment, cars, televisions; all the crap that people bring into a marriage and collect over a ten year period. They had a rental condo that was originally his and a house they bought together. The only thing that wasn't on it besides clothes were his skis, because he already took those stored at my cabin so she'd forget about them.
She starts arguing every little thing on that list. They each had lawyers present at $200/ hour. After about an hour of that crap he tells her, disgustedly: "why don't you just take it all?" She looked at him in disbelief, and he said "All I want is my car (it had 200,000 miles on it) and the engagement ring I bought you." So she says, angrily: "Take the damn ugly earrings too- I'll never wear anything you gave me", and they signed the papers.
A few weeks later he goes to the jewelers where he bought the jewelry to have them appraised and insured. The jeweler's been in business for a long time and they've known each other forever. He says "I remember when you bought this ring. It was a special stone, and we don't get these in very often. I gave you a good price back then, and they've become even more rare." As I recall it was 3 or more carets- huge, and a perfect stone. The jewelery was worth $80,000. He knew the stuff was valuable since he bought it years previous, but he had no idea it was worth that much.
Since the real estate market is down she has near zero equity. All she walked off with is a bunch of used furniture and crap.
cawacko
Well-known member
We're not talking about moral obligations we're talking about legal. You yourself said above 'if the other wishes out', well in this case the lady who spent the money wishes out.
cawacko
Well-known member
I would probably assume to that hooking up meets sleeping with someone but that isn't always the case. He could have been at a Vegas night club and hooked up with a girl on the dance floor.
In this case, the lawyer made the same argument I make. And she won.
Therefore precedent.
http://www.savvysugar.com/Man-Must-Pay-150000-Breaking-Engagement-Contract-1811321
Actually "we" are talking about both. There are two issues, the legal issue where she spent money according to his assurance of fidelity and marriage, and the moral issue where the man knows he played this girl to the tune of 30K or so.
She isn't entitled to "pain and suffering" the law in California that Yurt is citing is clear on that, however monetary obligations are different, even more so if they were cohabiting. The reality is she had a reasonable assurance and verbal agreement, even sealed with what is legally called a "conditional gift", that he would then be faithful and fulfill the obligation that he took upon himself by first asking for her agreement, and then by gifting her with a symbol of the agreement.
He then, after she spent a small fortune, decided that his obligations meant nothing. That's fine, but married or not you are going to have to pay your share.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're incredible damo. i give you appellate law, which is actual precedent, and you ignore it and continue to rant on about how its a contract. now you find one superior court jury case and proclaim -- see, i'm right, precedent! amazing how you choose to only believe the sources that fit your view. you usually don't do this.
jury decisions are not precedent. unless the case is upheld at an appellate court, it only applies to that case. and your link really gave very little information, so i have no idea if it actually supports what you claim it does.
now...if you can cite LAW that supports your claim, that would be great. a jury decision is not law. you claimed an engagement is the same as a marriage contract. i'm guessing you madly scoured the internet and didn't find anything to support your claim, so you give a link to a jury trial.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
damo....if an engagement is a contract, can you sue for specific performance or maybe see a non dating clause 
No, I didn't claim it was the "same" as a marriage contract. I said it was a verbal contract with evidence (the ring). There is a difference, as you well know. Especially in cases like this where they limit rewards and protect against claims of "pain and suffering". One cannot be forced to marry, however they do have responsibility towards the other who took action on their behalf due to their verbal agreement. In this case she spent money with that understanding, she is due some repayment for that money spent.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're claimed, that like a marriage, an engagement is a contract. provide law for that. there is no verbal contract. most courts disagree with me and all you have to proclaim you're right is some jury trial, while ignoring appellate decisions.
i looked at the link you provided and was amused that some responses were similar mine. you're asking the government to intrude into very private affairs. that kind of morality should not be legislated. you're basically setting it up so that the party who doesn't want to be sued, will simply go through the marriage to avoid a lawsuit. such an outcome is very real and entirely against the ethos of this country and is tantamount to forced labor.
Last edited:
Taken out of the context of previous posts in the thread.
The reality is you know I was speaking of verbal contracts, and you can especially tell that when I specifically stated so and informed you that courts enforce them, with enough evidence that they actually took place. In this case evidence is legion.
I'm not asking the government to "intervene". If the man were of moral value she wouldn't have to sue, he'd own up to his obligation. In this case there is a victim. While I do not believe that she deserves "pain and suffering" payment, I do believe that she deserves recompense for what she spent with due assurances that it would be a shared debt/loss after the conclusion of the verbal portion of their agreement. One doesn't get to break contract (even verbal contract) without responsibility.
The law shouldn't deal with morality, but it should deal with reasonable expectations in regard to verbal agreements, especially ones that have such easily verified evidence. The man entered an agreement with her, failed to live up to his promise (not illegal, but definitely immoral) then believes he holds no responsibility for losses directly caused by a belief in regard to the agreement.
Tell me, if this were any other verbal agreement, with the same strength of evidence of the agreement, would you not believe that the aggrieved deserves monetary recompense for costs that could not be returned?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
how can you say you are not asking the government to intervene when you want her to go to court...this is in fact allowing the government to intervene.
damo, apparently i'm not making myself clear to you. as i have repeatedly said, this type of agreement is not at all like any other agreement. like the courts in california state, these are intensely private matters and no place for the court. i do not want the courts involved in having someone be liable for the costs of a wedding should they choose at the last minute they don't want to get married. such a conclusion can only serve to have bullshit weddings. you refuse to ackknowledge this aspect of what you seek. no one should be forced, under duress of being liable, to marry someone. that is the result you will get if you allow courts to intervene. this type of agreement or promise really, cannot and should not be compared to any other promise.
if you get you way, watch out for an entire new area of law arising out of engagement contracts. i'm sure that will make my friends happy. i just had no idea you wanted to expand lawyer's role in society. you're awesome