Quote of the Day - Before marriage a man yearns for a woman. Afterward the "y" is silent.
Matthew Heller blogs about a woman in Pennsylvania sued for accepting a $35,000 engagement ring, who then sold it for $11,000 and donated the proceeds to charity after her suitor jilted her. In response, she claims that the suitor asked her to "consider" what to do with her six other diamond rings (was she married that many times before this proposal?). She contends that she agreed to her suitor's request to give up the other rings, valued at over $20,000. She fulfilled her end of the bargain by giving them to charity, with one family ring given to a niece.
Since she fulfilled her end of the contract, she's now claiming that it is her suitor who breached his contract with her.
Who wins? Matthew opines that the suitor looks like the likely winner under Pennsylvania law, and says, "In 1999, the state Supreme Court said the giving of an engagement ring is conditional on performance of a marriage ceremony, not acceptance of a marriage proposal." The woman, however, cites to a more feminist-leaning Montana law, which ruled that a gift is a gift, and not a bilateral contract that can only be fulfilled through performance.
What's your ruling, dear reader?