Anonymous wrote:Of course you give the ring back. Why would you think you could keep it - to sell it? Save money for your next suitor? Keeping it out of spite? What the heck are you going to do with it if you aren't going to get married. Give it back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to keep it if the wedding is called off? The ethical thing to do is return it.

If you/your family paid a lot of non-refundable deposits for the wedding, selling the ring can help you recoup that.

This is why I would support not returning the ring.

Second hand rings have no market value

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to keep it if the wedding is called off? The ethical thing to do is return it.

If you/your family paid a lot of non-refundable deposits for the wedding, selling the ring can help you recoup that.

This is why I would support not returning the ring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this day and age, I'm not sure why an "engagement ring" is treated differently from any other thing one person gives another., at least legally. It is a gift, and not one that is any way required to set an intention to marry.

If I plan a trip with my partner and buy tickets for two and then he backs out, would anyone think for a second that he is *legally* required to reimburse me?
Let's say I don't give my partner a ring, but instead I give him a car at around the same time we start planning to get married, nobody would think he is legally required to give it back.

Morality/ethics is a different hing all together. But engagement rings shouldn't be special in any way under the law.

These are treated the same way. There's case law for this. I don't remember the specific case atm, but a man gave his fiancee a ring, bought her a house and a car, and gave her money for her own business. She disappeared and while gone married another man and used the money to start a business somewhere else with the new husband. The judge ruled that she had to give everything back to her original fiance.

I remember all of the debates back and forth about this one in my law school class.

Anyway, it doesn't matter in the end because the only thing that matters is the state in which the couple resides. Each state has its own way of dealing with broken engagements now regarding who gets to keep the ring.

PP, I agree with you on where the law currently stands and I think I remember debating the same case. But my point, as indicated by "in this day and age" is that I think in those states where it hasn't yet, the law should evolve. In some ways, it is rather sexist to view a ring as contract. Feels like a conditional contract to procure chattel or something...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this day and age, I'm not sure why an "engagement ring" is treated differently from any other thing one person gives another., at least legally. It is a gift, and not one that is any way required to set an intention to marry.

If I plan a trip with my partner and buy tickets for two and then he backs out, would anyone think for a second that he is *legally* required to reimburse me?
Let's say I don't give my partner a ring, but instead I give him a car at around the same time we start planning to get married, nobody would think he is legally required to give it back.

Morality/ethics is a different hing all together. But engagement rings shouldn't be special in any way under the law.

These are treated the same way. There's case law for this. I don't remember the specific case atm, but a man gave his fiancee a ring, bought her a house and a car, and gave her money for her own business. She disappeared and while gone married another man and used the money to start a business somewhere else with the new husband. The judge ruled that she had to give everything back to her original fiance.

I remember all of the debates back and forth about this one in my law school class.

Anyway, it doesn't matter in the end because the only thing that matters is the state in which the couple resides. Each state has its own way of dealing with broken engagements now regarding who gets to keep the ring.

Anonymous wrote:In this day and age, I'm not sure why an "engagement ring" is treated differently from any other thing one person gives another., at least legally. It is a gift, and not one that is any way required to set an intention to marry.

If I plan a trip with my partner and buy tickets for two and then he backs out, would anyone think for a second that he is *legally* required to reimburse me?
Let's say I don't give my partner a ring, but instead I give him a car at around the same time we start planning to get married, nobody would think he is legally required to give it back.

Morality/ethics is a different hing all together. But engagement rings shouldn't be special in any way under the law.

Anonymous wrote:I broke off an engagement and my ex didn't want the ring returned. I still have no idea what to do with it. The diamond isn't worth much. Wish he'd taken it back

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t Judge Judy address this?
It’s a gift in contemplation of marriage. If the marriage does not happen the intent of the ring should be returned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to keep it if the wedding is called off? The ethical thing to do is return it.

If you/your family paid a lot of non-refundable deposits for the wedding, selling the ring can help you recoup that.

This is why I would support not returning the ring.

If you are the one calling it off, then I think that should be on you. Unless something like infidelity.

This sounds fair to me. If the groom breaks it off (without the bride's betrayal) or betrays the bride, then the ring could be used to pay for expenses incurred. If the bride just changes her mind, then she/her family should pay for the expenses incurred and return the ring.