Jilted Bride Sues & Wins

[dockman3]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:07:43 PM
Author: Galateia

According to the link Rob posted, in the majority of states it''s a ''conditional'' gift, meaning if the conditions are not fufilled, in some cases the recipent must return it.


Since you expressed interest in the fiance visa situation, another thing I should add is that my guy and I had to submit (on two occasions) letters stating that we were legally able to and willing (aka engaged) to marry, and would do so within 90 days of me activating the visa. Now that is a contract to get married!


Just had another thought; let''s presume that a couple is in a no-fault state where the ring must be returned. What happens if the woman contributed financially to the ring, as Gwendolyn is? Can the ring be considered a ''gift'' if the wearer (in part) purchased it?

That whole fiance visa thing still really intrigues me. I had no idea there even was such a thing. That is definitely a contract to get married!!

Ok, I can concede the engagement ring being a conditional gift. I still don''t think it can be used in court to say "he owes me all the money I would have made had I not moved here". It was her choice to move without being married and it didn''t work out. That''s life. Deal with it and see if you can get your old job back.

 

[fieryred33143]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:13:26 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
I think many women nowadays are VERY overeager for ''love'' in their lives - the women on those judge shows really make me sad

Kind of off topic but related...a woman (in her 50s) sued a boyfriend she met on the internet (Judge Milian...love her!) Her argument was that in his eharmony profile he specifically stated that he was "looking for marriage" which is why she reached out to him. She fell in love, was expecting a proposal, it never came, he dumped her, and then was suing for "grief." She wasn''t awarded anything but I felt extremely bad for her.

I will most likely be making more than my FF when we get married, and the VP of his company actually asked him yesterday if it will bother him. I thought it was weird that he would even ask that - no one would think twice if it was the other way around and ask me if I was bothered by his higher income. Very messed up in this day and age.

Ditto. My FF had to overcome a lot of hurdles to prove to everyone that just becaue I make more, that doesn''t mean he isn''t good enough for me. It took a few years for him to prove that to my family and he should not have and if it were the other way around, there would have been a lot of ''smart girl'' comments going around.

 

[littlelysser]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:17:41 PM
Author: dockman3



That whole fiance visa thing still really intrigues me. I had no idea there even was such a thing. That is definitely a contract to get married!!


Ok, I can concede the engagement ring being a conditional gift. I still don't think it can be used in court to say 'he owes me all the money I would have made had I not moved here'. It was her choice to move without being married and it didn't work out. That's life. Deal with it and see if you can get your old job back.

So by your analysis - say somebody asked you to paint their house for $2000. You agree. You have turned down other jobs because you agreed to paint this house. You have purchased paint for this house. You have purchased equipment for use. If you show up for the job and the owner says, ehhhh, I've changed my mind...

You'd be okay with dealing with it? Not getting any compensation for the purchases you made and jobs your turned down in reliance of that offer?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:17:41 PM
Author: dockman3

Date: 7/25/2008 3:07:43 PM
Author: Galateia

According to the link Rob posted, in the majority of states it's a 'conditional' gift, meaning if the conditions are not fufilled, in some cases the recipent must return it.


Since you expressed interest in the fiance visa situation, another thing I should add is that my guy and I had to submit (on two occasions) letters stating that we were legally able to and willing (aka engaged) to marry, and would do so within 90 days of me activating the visa. Now that is a contract to get married!


Just had another thought; let's presume that a couple is in a no-fault state where the ring must be returned. What happens if the woman contributed financially to the ring, as Gwendolyn is? Can the ring be considered a 'gift' if the wearer (in part) purchased it?

That whole fiance visa thing still really intrigues me. I had no idea there even was such a thing. That is definitely a contract to get married!!

Ok, I can concede the engagement ring being a conditional gift. I still don't think it can be used in court to say 'he owes me all the money I would have made had I not moved here'. It was her choice to move without being married and it didn't work out. That's life. Deal with it and see if you can get your old job back.

I think it comes down to the details of the circumstances and as Rob pointed out, the jurisdiction. It's hard to simply say, "it's your choice tough sh*t" because there are so many situations we can say this about yet there are tons of contract and consumer protection laws on the books regardless of whether we think it was simply a choice issue. When people start making promises and people act on those promises and suffer as a result...well in certain situations the law can get involved. I think perceptions can be skewed a bit in this case because we think "all is far in love and war"....a break up is a break up right? Well, apparently not.

 

[aliciagirl]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:04:56 PM
Author: littlelysser
Okay. Here are my thoughts on this.


Two people can enter into a BINDING verbal contract - so long as there is an offer, acceptance of that offer and consideration.


Before I get too law school on everyone...consideration basically means each party is giving something up or doing something for the other party.


For example...if my my dad said that he would give me $20 to mow the lawn and I said yes, I''ll do it for 20 bucks - voila - contract. Doesn''t need to be written down. In fact, only certain contracts do. If I mowed the lawn and my dad didn''t pay - well, I could sue him!


Now, consideration can be something as minimal as a penny. However, if my dad asked me to mow the lawn, and offered no money or anything and I said yes and didn''t do it - well he can''t sue me because there was no consideration.


Now, for fun, assuming my dad and I entered into the contract and BEFORE I mowed the lawn I went out and spent $15 on ice cream of anticipated lawn money and my dad tried to cancel the contract he would be estopped from doing it, because I did something in RELIANCE on that promise.


It looks like that is what we''ve got here. If dude promised to marry lady if she moved and took the crappy job (consideration on both sides...he''s giving her a ring, she''s moving) and then he broke his word to her...well, she pretty much got screwed in reliance on that promise to marry.


Does that make sense?


Now, there are lots of issues about love, ability to change one''s mind...but two people can contract to do anything - even marry. And the law doesn''t give on good crap about the terms of that contract...so long as it isn''t dealing with anything illegal.


Just my .02.

Thanks for this. Everyone can argue about whether or not it''s fair until the cows come home, but the law doesn''t really appreciate people changing their minds on a contract. And it was a contract because a jury of people, like you and I, saw the facts and decided that it was. We don''t get all of the information here.

I agree that it''s silly and unfair to the guy. I wouldn''t want to marry someone who lied about having significant debt, either. But from a law standpoint, it seems legitimate.

 

[littlelysser]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:33:12 PM
Author: aliciagirl

Date: 7/25/2008 3:04:56 PM

Author: littlelysser

Okay. Here are my thoughts on this.



Two people can enter into a BINDING verbal contract - so long as there is an offer, acceptance of that offer and consideration.



Before I get too law school on everyone...consideration basically means each party is giving something up or doing something for the other party.



For example...if my my dad said that he would give me $20 to mow the lawn and I said yes, I'll do it for 20 bucks - voila - contract. Doesn't need to be written down. In fact, only certain contracts do. If I mowed the lawn and my dad didn't pay - well, I could sue him!



Now, consideration can be something as minimal as a penny. However, if my dad asked me to mow the lawn, and offered no money or anything and I said yes and didn't do it - well he can't sue me because there was no consideration.



Now, for fun, assuming my dad and I entered into the contract and BEFORE I mowed the lawn I went out and spent $15 on ice cream of anticipated lawn money and my dad tried to cancel the contract he would be estopped from doing it, because I did something in RELIANCE on that promise.



It looks like that is what we've got here. If dude promised to marry lady if she moved and took the crappy job (consideration on both sides...he's giving her a ring, she's moving) and then he broke his word to her...well, she pretty much got screwed in reliance on that promise to marry.



Does that make sense?



Now, there are lots of issues about love, ability to change one's mind...but two people can contract to do anything - even marry. And the law doesn't give on good crap about the terms of that contract...so long as it isn't dealing with anything illegal.



Just my .02.

Thanks for this. Everyone can argue about whether or not it's fair until the cows come home, but the law doesn't really appreciate people changing their minds on a contract. And it was a contract because a jury of people, like you and I, saw the facts and decided that it was. We don't get all of the information here.


I agree that it's silly and unfair to the guy. I wouldn't want to marry someone who lied about having significant debt, either. But from a law standpoint, it seems legitimate.

Thanks! I'm not practicing law anymore...but I did love contracts...was one of my favorite classes in law school.

Although I've been thinking more about...and I think I misspoke about what the consideration was...here the consideration was more likely that they were both "giving up" their freedom to be a swinging single, so to speak. Of course, that is just the law geek in me coming out and feeling the need to correct my error...so everyone can feel free to ignore this post...

 

[dockman3]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:21:23 PM
Author: littlelysser

Date: 7/25/2008 3:17:41 PM

Author: dockman3




That whole fiance visa thing still really intrigues me. I had no idea there even was such a thing. That is definitely a contract to get married!!



Ok, I can concede the engagement ring being a conditional gift. I still don''t think it can be used in court to say ''he owes me all the money I would have made had I not moved here''. It was her choice to move without being married and it didn''t work out. That''s life. Deal with it and see if you can get your old job back.

So by your analysis - say somebody asked you to paint their house for $2000. You agree. You have turned down other jobs because you agreed to paint this house. You have purchased paint for this house. You have purchased equipment for use. If you show up for the job and the owner says, ehhhh, I''ve changed my mind...


You''d be okay with dealing with it? Not getting any compensation for the purchases you made and jobs your turned down in reliance of that offer?

No, I wouldn''t be ok with it. However, because it was a professional job, I would get it in writing and make up an actual written contract. I would also probably ask for money for supplies ahead of time, as a down payment. I''d be able to use the equipment for another job, so it wouldn''t hurt me that much.

When I got my ring set, I had to put some money down so that the jeweler would actually do the setting. He was making sure that I wouldn''t have them do all the work and then not get paid for that labor. That''s smart. Moving on a promise with no way to protect yourself, not as smart because you have no legal recourse. Business practices are one thing. Personal relationships are a very different thing. The legal rights of one shouldn''t apply to the other.

I get your point and I understand what reliance is, but verbal reliance without a written contract seems very shaky to me. Engagements break up all the time for a number of different reasons. But as soon as engagement becomes a contract, what''s going to happen to a plain old relationship?

 

[dockman3]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:26:32 PM
Author: MoonWater

I think it comes down to the details of the circumstances and as Rob pointed out, the jurisdiction. It''s hard to simply say, ''it''s your choice tough sh*t'' because there are so many situations we can say this about yet there are tons of contract and consumer protection laws on the books regardless of whether we think it was simply a choice issue. When people start making promises and people act on those promises and suffer as a result...well in certain situations the law can get involved. I think perceptions can be skewed a bit in this case because we think ''all is far in love and war''....a break up is a break up right? Well, apparently not.

Yes, it does come down to jurisdiction and circumstances, but the contract and consumer protection laws are for CONSUMERS who deal with BUSINESSES, not two people in a personal relationship. I don''t want to have to think about the legal repercussions of entering into a committed relationship with someone. Yes, marriage should have legal protections, but not anything short of actually being married.

 

[sklingem]

There are no plain old relationships! Only men who will not commit! LOL
Can we get some good engagement stories ??? Nobody is getting engaged lately. Hm ... wonder why ...

 

[meresal]

Date: 7/25/2008 2:56:31 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Haha - great! You probably know a lot more about this topic then! One of the articles talking about the case referred to ti specifically as a 'heart balm' case so it's funny you mention those old statutes. I wonder if he can ask for his $30,000 back - I'm sure he paid it in anticipation of them combining their assets in marriage - maybe it should be deducted from the award amount. Also, anyone have thoughts on my 'house' analogy?

I'm back... sorry, staff meeting

Ahh, the house... the way I see it. He still owns the house and has the option to sell. (as does the woman in the case, she has the option to sell the ring to make up for losses. In which case that profit shoudl be taken into accoutn when awarding "damages". I still think that $150K is way too much, and agree there's no way that amount will stand up in appelate court) If he wants to keep the house then that is a decision, but if he sells she is not entitled to any profits that might have possible been made towards it.

 

[dockman3]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:43:55 PM
Author: rob09
There are no plain old relationships! Only men who will not commit! LOL

HAHAHAHAH!! That''s awesome, Rob.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:44:15 PM
Author: meresal

Date: 7/25/2008 2:56:31 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Haha - great! You probably know a lot more about this topic then! One of the articles talking about the case referred to ti specifically as a 'heart balm' case so it's funny you mention those old statutes. I wonder if he can ask for his $30,000 back - I'm sure he paid it in anticipation of them combining their assets in marriage - maybe it should be deducted from the award amount. Also, anyone have thoughts on my 'house' analogy?

I'm back... sorry, staff meeting

Ahh, the house... the way I see it. He still owns the house and has the option to sell. (as does the woman in the case, she has the option to sell the ring to make up for losses) If he wants to keep the house then that is a decision, but if he sells she is not entitled to any profits that might have possible been made towards it.

Yeah, I realized the house wasn't that good of an analogy because of the title/mortgage/etc. But what if he had to sell it after the broken engagement and lost money on it... Don't mind me, just trying to find applicable situations other than payment for "services" because it makes an engagement sound more like a "proposition" than a "proposal." lol

Anyway, I still think there will be a strong appeal of this verdict...and judges on an appellate court may feel differently than the 12 jurors on this topic, especially because they will be the ones who have to hear the numerous cases that will likely follow should the trial court's verdict stand.

 

[sklingem]

Very good point Indygirl22!!
Go Hoosiers!

 

[littlelysser]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:39:22 PM
Author: dockman3

No, I wouldn''t be ok with it. However, because it was a professional job, I would get it in writing and make up an actual written contract. I would also probably ask for money for supplies ahead of time, as a down payment. I''d be able to use the equipment for another job, so it wouldn''t hurt me that much.


When I got my ring set, I had to put some money down so that the jeweler would actually do the setting. He was making sure that I wouldn''t have them do all the work and then not get paid for that labor. That''s smart. Moving on a promise with no way to protect yourself, not as smart because you have no legal recourse. Business practices are one thing. Personal relationships are a very different thing. The legal rights of one shouldn''t apply to the other.


I get your point and I understand what reliance is, but verbal reliance without a written contract seems very shaky to me. Engagements break up all the time for a number of different reasons. But as soon as engagement becomes a contract, what''s going to happen to a plain old relationship?

You seem bothered by the idea of written contract, or in the case, the lack of one. Legally, they just aren''t required for a contract to be binding. Simple as that. There are some contracts that need to be written, but I''ll spare everyone the details of discussing the statute of frauds, but most don''t. Of course, it is MUCH easier to prove a contract exists if there is a written contract, but even that doesn''t guarantee its simple enforcement.

The things you would have done to protect yourself and your hypothetical house-painting business are definitely smart, but not required for you to have some sort of legal redress for what the hypo-home owner did.

In your ring scenario - say you and the jeweler agreed he was going to work on your ring for a set amount. We have a BINDING contract. Consideration - he is giving time and materials to make your ring, you are giving up money. No written contract and no down payment is required. If you decided not to pay him after he finishes the work, he could sue you for breach of contract. Simple as that.

Now, without a writing memorializing the agreement is he going to have a harder time proving that the contract exists and the terms of that contract, well, of course. But the contract exists. Do you see what I''m saying?

I do understand what you are saying about the difference between personal relationships and business relationships - but the law doesn''t really see that distinction.

A contract is a contract.

That is just what the law is. Don''t shoot the messenger!

 

[littlelysser]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:46:08 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
Yeah, I realized the house wasn't that good of an analogy because of the title/mortgage/etc. But what if he had to sell it after the broken engagement and lost money on it... Don't mind me, just trying to find applicable situations other than payment for 'services' because it makes an engagement sound more like a 'proposition' than a 'proposal.' lol

Anyway, I still think there will be a strong appeal of this verdict...and judges on an appellate court may feel differently than the 12 jurors on this topic, especially because they will be the ones who have to hear the numerous cases that will likely follow should the trial court's verdict stand.

The guy is the one that broke the engagement...thus as the one who breached the contract he would not be entitled to any damages he may have suffered due to his own actions...I took contracts over 10 years ago...so bear with me here.

Had he bought the house in reliance on getting married and she broke it off, well then, yeah. He might have a case that he was due some damages.

ETA - And I don't mean to be a jackelope...but I was a deputy clerk for an appellate court for several years, writing opinions and such. And although we may have disagreed with a jury's verdict and been absolutely appalled by it and its repercussions, that isn't a valid reason to over turn the jury's verdict.

 

[dockman3]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:58:31 PM
Author: littlelysser

You seem bothered by the idea of written contract, or in the case, the lack of one. Legally, they just aren''t required for a contract to be binding. Simple as that. There are some contracts that need to be written, but I''ll spare everyone the details of discussing the statute of frauds, but most don''t. Of course, it is MUCH easier to prove a contract exists if there is a written contract, but even that doesn''t guarantee its simple enforcement.


The things you would have done to protect yourself and your hypothetical house-painting business are definitely smart, but not required for you to have some sort of legal redress for what the hypo-home owner did.


In your ring scenario - say you and the jeweler agreed he was going to work on your ring for a set amount. We have a BINDING contract. Consideration - he is giving time and materials to make your ring, you are giving up money. No written contract and no down payment is required. If you decided not to pay him after he finishes the work, he could sue you for breach of contract. Simple as that.


Now, without a writing memorializing the agreement is he going to have a harder time proving that the contract exists and the terms of that contract, well, of course. But the contract exists. Do you see what I''m saying?


I do understand what you are saying about the difference between personal relationships and business relationships - but the law doesn''t really see that distinction.


A contract is a contract.


That is just what the law is. Don''t shoot the messenger!

Hahaha, I would never shoot the messenger! I guess not being a lawyer I didn''t have an appreciation for what a "contract" is in legal terms. I always assumed that a verbal contract was damn near impossible to prove since is one party''s word against the other. I see your point with both the painting and the rings. I guess people just aren''t smart when they enter into contracts and that''s where they get in trouble. They don''t take the time to make sure that they will be safe and protected, which is why we end up with problems. I guess I would like it more if the courts stayed out of my personal life, but if that''s the law, then that''s the law. I really hope this ruling gets over turned...

Thanks for setting me straight with the legal jargon. This just goes to show what happens when you try to talk about something you think you might know something about but it turns out you don''t. Oh well. Now I know exactly what makes a legal contract and I''ll be sure to be very careful when I propose!

 

[dockman3]

Well everyone, I''m heading home for the day. I just wanted to say that this has been a really fun discussion and I''m glad I got to take part in it! I look forward to reading the rest of it tomorrow when I get a chance. Thanks!

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/25/2008 4:03:34 PM
Author: littlelysser

Date: 7/25/2008 3:46:08 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
Yeah, I realized the house wasn't that good of an analogy because of the title/mortgage/etc. But what if he had to sell it after the broken engagement and lost money on it... Don't mind me, just trying to find applicable situations other than payment for 'services' because it makes an engagement sound more like a 'proposition' than a 'proposal.' lol

Anyway, I still think there will be a strong appeal of this verdict...and judges on an appellate court may feel differently than the 12 jurors on this topic, especially because they will be the ones who have to hear the numerous cases that will likely follow should the trial court's verdict stand.

The guy is the one that broke the engagement...thus as the one who breached the contract he would not be entitled to any damages he may have suffered due to his own actions...I took contracts over 10 years ago...so bear with me here.

Had he bought the house in reliance on getting married and she broke it off, well then, yeah. He might have a case that he was due some damages.

ETA - And I don't mean to be a jackelope...but I was a deputy clerk for an appellate court for several years, writing opinions and such. And although we may have disagreed with a jury's verdict and been absolutely appalled by it and its repercussions, that isn't a valid reason to over turn the jury's verdict.

Oh no, I definitely agree that if he breaks the "contract" then it's his loss - in my analogy it was the woman who breaks it off though. According to this precedent, then he would be awarded damages + 15% annual interest (not sure if this was statutorily set, but seems high). I definitely remember what you're saying as far as contract law goes because I just had it all last year and found some of those cases very interesting. I remember a promissory estoppel case having to do with a widow moving (not engagement and there was a letter involved - I'm sure you know what I'm talking about here), but that case was ANCIENT and somewhat different than this one. I haven't worked for any judges (yet), but I have read plenty of cases where the court decides what it wants to rule (many times based on policy) and THEN subsequently comes up with reasons to rule that way...I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be one of those cases. If I had to guess, I would say the apellate court will reduce the award at the very least, to show that plaintiffs in these situations will not get a windfall.

ETA: I really like this discussion too - I think it has been carried on in a very civil, nice way...educated people discussing important issues. Gets me more excited than the typical "what color should my cake icing be," although I love those threads too! I was worried about getting a job after law school but, judging from this cases, I feel much better.

 

[littlelysser]

Date: 7/25/2008 4:05:13 PM
Author: dockman3

Thanks for setting me straight with the legal jargon. This just goes to show what happens when you try to talk about something you think you might know something about but it turns out you don''t. Oh well. Now I know exactly what makes a legal contract and I''ll be sure to be very careful when I propose!

No problem! Besides, if lawyers and judges and legislatures didn''t create all of these laws containing bassackwards legalese, think of all the poor sweet lawyers that would be left starving!

 

[littlelysser]

Date: 7/25/2008 4:14:35 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Oh no, I definitely agree that if he breaks the 'contract' then it's his loss - in my analogy it was the woman who breaks it off though. According to this precedent, then he would be awarded damages + 15% annual interest (not sure if this was statutorily set, but seems high). I definitely remember what you're saying as far as contract law goes because I just had it all last year and found some of those cases very interesting. I remember a promissory estoppel case having to do with a widow moving (not engagement and there was a letter involved - I'm sure you know what I'm talking about here), but that case was ANCIENT and somewhat different than this one. I haven't worked for any judges (yet), but I have read plenty of cases where the court decides what it wants to rule (many times based on policy) and THEN subsequently comes up with reasons to rule that way...I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be one of those cases. If I had to guess, I would say the apellate court will reduce the award at the very least, to show that plaintiffs in these situations will not get a windfall.

Okay. Got it. Then yup...I would have to say if he bought the house in reliance upon the promise to marry - and if a court found it was a reasonable thing to do given that promise - he should be awarded money damages based on her breach.

See, THIS is the stuff I LOVED about law school. All hypothetical and abstract. Fun stuff!

ETA - Indy - You have NO IDEA the crap that came across my desk when I was a judicial clerk...I often wondered how some of these people graduated from 3rd grade...nevermind law school! I'm sure you'll do great!

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:42:48 PM
Author: dockman3

Date: 7/25/2008 3:26:32 PM
Author: MoonWater

I think it comes down to the details of the circumstances and as Rob pointed out, the jurisdiction. It's hard to simply say, 'it's your choice tough sh*t' because there are so many situations we can say this about yet there are tons of contract and consumer protection laws on the books regardless of whether we think it was simply a choice issue. When people start making promises and people act on those promises and suffer as a result...well in certain situations the law can get involved. I think perceptions can be skewed a bit in this case because we think 'all is far in love and war'....a break up is a break up right? Well, apparently not.

Yes, it does come down to jurisdiction and circumstances, but the contract and consumer protection laws are for CONSUMERS who deal with BUSINESSES, not two people in a personal relationship. I don't want to have to think about the legal repercussions of entering into a committed relationship with someone. Yes, marriage should have legal protections, but not anything short of actually being married.

Actually contract laws are not simply for consumers, they are for many aspects of life, including personal relationships (such as prenups or the most obvious...marriage). It's fine that you don't want to think about relationships in this context but once people decide to form a legal commitment (i.e. marriage) and make the necessary steps toward it (engagement) it becomes more than a simple personal relationship. From my perspective a marriage is a business deal and the engagement is part of that deal.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 7/25/2008 4:14:35 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 7/25/2008 4:03:34 PM

Author: littlelysser

Date: 7/25/2008 3:46:08 PM

Author: IndyGirl22

Yeah, I realized the house wasn''t that good of an analogy because of the title/mortgage/etc. But what if he had to sell it after the broken engagement and lost money on it... Don''t mind me, just trying to find applicable situations other than payment for ''services'' because it makes an engagement sound more like a ''proposition'' than a ''proposal.'' lol

Anyway, I still think there will be a strong appeal of this verdict...and judges on an appellate court may feel differently than the 12 jurors on this topic, especially because they will be the ones who have to hear the numerous cases that will likely follow should the trial court''s verdict stand.

The guy is the one that broke the engagement...thus as the one who breached the contract he would not be entitled to any damages he may have suffered due to his own actions...I took contracts over 10 years ago...so bear with me here.


Had he bought the house in reliance on getting married and she broke it off, well then, yeah. He might have a case that he was due some damages.


ETA - And I don''t mean to be a jackelope...but I was a deputy clerk for an appellate court for several years, writing opinions and such. And although we may have disagreed with a jury''s verdict and been absolutely appalled by it and its repercussions, that isn''t a valid reason to over turn the jury''s verdict.

Oh no, I definitely agree that if he breaks the ''contract'' then it''s his loss - in my analogy it was the woman who breaks it off though. According to this precedent, then he would be awarded damages + 15% annual interest (not sure if this was statutorily set, but seems high). I definitely remember what you''re saying as far as contract law goes because I just had it all last year and found some of those cases very interesting. I remember a promissory estoppel case having to do with a widow moving (not engagement and there was a letter involved - I''m sure you know what I''m talking about here), but that case was ANCIENT and somewhat different than this one. I haven''t worked for any judges (yet), but I have read plenty of cases where the court decides what it wants to rule (many times based on policy) and THEN subsequently comes up with reasons to rule that way...I wouldn''t be surprised if this turns out to be one of those cases. If I had to guess, I would say the apellate court will reduce the award at the very least, to show that plaintiffs in these situations will not get a windfall.


ETA: I really like this discussion too - I think it has been carried on in a very civil, nice way...educated people discussing important issues. Gets me more excited than the typical ''what color should my cake icing be,'' although I love those threads too! I was worried about getting a job after law school but, judging from this cases, I feel much better.

Couldn''t agree more.

Not to sound like a Pollyanna, but this kind of thread showcases what an unusual resource PS is; I''ve never come across such a concentration of intelligent people of differing backgrounds and knowledge who are able to discuss instead of competing in an attempt to ''win'' an argument and devolving the situation into a sandbox squabble.

 

[meresal]

Indy: It wasn't 15% interest... the 15% they tacked on was what the jurors decided would have been her annual raise %'age (just over $12,000/yr), had the woman kept her job. A bit high, ya think?!?! AND they awarded her benefits. A $40,000 benefit package AND a $12,000 raise... where do I sign up!!!

I said earlier, that if I came to this conclusion as they had, the standard 3% for average annual inflation would have suited her just fine. 15% was overkill if you ask me.

 

[meresal]

Date: 7/25/2008 4:36:29 PM
Author: Galateia

Couldn't agree more.

Not to sound like a Pollyanna, but this kind of thread showcases what an unusual resource PS is; I've never come across such a concentration of intelligent people of differing backgrounds and knowledge who are able to discuss instead of competing in an attempt to 'win' an argument and devolving the situation into a sandbox squabble.

I would love to find a smiley of this... j/k

I agree, this has been a wonderful learning experience!

 

[MoonWater]

Ditto on liking this discussion.

 

[sklingem]

"Did your guy promise you flowers? Did he not follow through? Sue his sorry a*s and get the flowers you deserve! Call 1-888-noROBingme for a free consultation"

 

[TravelingGal]

Fascinating discussion (oh how I love it when my baby naps!)...

My first reaction is it was her choice to move. You can be asked, cajoled, begged, whatever, but at the end of the day it''s your choice and you have to do things to protect yourself.

My second reaction was, it is possible that he agreed they can move onto the next phase (i.e. he agree to marry her) if she agreed to move. She moved, he didn''t marry her. She has a right to ask for compensation.

My third reaction is still coming in, I think. I read all your posts and am mulling...but it''s a great discussion for sure.

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 7/25/2008 3:21:23 PM
Author: littlelysser

Date: 7/25/2008 3:17:41 PM
Author: dockman3
That whole fiance visa thing still really intrigues me. I had no idea there even was such a thing. That is definitely a contract to get married!!

Ok, I can concede the engagement ring being a conditional gift. I still don't think it can be used in court to say 'he owes me all the money I would have made had I not moved here'. It was her choice to move without being married and it didn't work out. That's life. Deal with it and see if you can get your old job back.

So by your analysis - say somebody asked you to paint their house for $2000. You agree. You have turned down other jobs because you agreed to paint this house. You have purchased paint for this house. You have purchased equipment for use. If you show up for the job and the owner says, ehhhh, I've changed my mind...

You'd be okay with dealing with it? Not getting any compensation for the purchases you made and jobs your turned down in reliance of that offer?

Well I'm late to the party.

I am torn, even after reading all of the comments. I think that the a reason she should be allowed the 150k is if it could be proven that he entered the *contract* of engagement while never intending to go through with it.

This is one twisted case.

I think it's interesting that the guys are so vehemently against this claim. I wonder if the situation were reversed and it was the guy that moved and left the higher paying job, if this would remain the way it is.

After reading everything and drawing on my experiences with family law, I sort of equate this to those situations where a couple gets married. The following situation is entirely hypothetical-any resemblance to real life persons or situations is completely coincidental. From what I understand, quite common in reality.

Jane and Bob get married. Jane makes $$$ and supports Bob while he goes to school for an MBA. Bob graduates school and gets a good paying job. Then after not so long, he gets promoted and starts making $10 million a year. After ten years, he decides that he doesn't want to be married to Jane anymore (the fact that this arises directly after his meeting Jenny McCarthy is ENTIRELY coincidental). According to the courts, Jane is entitled to half of what he made in the previous 13 years because he was the main breadwinner, and because she supported him while he was in school. The court maintains that Bob would not have been able to make the $$$ that he did without Jane's help, so therefore she is entitled to half. And this does not include any alimony, etc.

Yes marriage is involved in this case, and in the 150k/moving expenses, marriage is not involved. However, you could look at the above as being more of a: Jane didn't get to pursue her own professional or educational interests while she was supporting Bob, therefore he owes her. I draw a parallel to litigious chick leaving a job worth 80k on the contract that she has made with her fiance at the promise to marry. The 150k is the equivalent to him paying for the difference of three years of her losing her job. You can look at this one way and say, he got off easy-who knows the kind of damage her leaving that job did to her career-she *could have been* offered a higher paying position if she had NOT left-and those damages would have been significantly more than $150k. Or you could use the argument that everyone else has (rob and dockman especially) that it is not a contract, that an engagement ring is a unconditional gift (which it is sooooo not-otherwise the girl would just keep the ring, and the guy would never ask for it back) and has no contractual obligation.

I don't think this is really setting a precedent for anyone but future litigious and possible scorned bride-to-bes. I highly doubt that there will be any engagement legal papers created, and marriage will continue to be the norm, but I do think there needs to be some kind of protection in personal contracts as well as professional ones. I don't think there are really that many people out there who get jilted and want to sue-and if this case prompts more of them, they are probably in a vast minority.

Family law is complicated, and it's never going to get any easier. Especially with gay and lesbian marriages/unions hovering on the horizon.

I want to ask my dad what he thinks of this case...

ETA: I agree that it's nice to see a civil discussion about a controversial topic being discussed-ESPECIALLY on the LIW forum.

And I'm awaiting your third response TGal.

 

[lindsaylove]

Date: 7/25/2008 5:35:07 PM
Author: FrekeChild

You can look at this one way and say, he got off easy-who knows the kind of damage her leaving that job did to her career-she *could have been* offered a higher paying position if she had NOT left-and those damages would have been significantly more than $150k.

Good point, Freke!

 

[MoonWater]

Freke you just reminded me of an episode of Law and Order (insert giggles). A lesbian couple who couldn''t get married but wanted to adopt a child. The more successful one adopted as a single woman and they raised the child together. Then the more successful one decided to dump the other mom and take the child. The other mom had no rights to her daughter because she wasn''t married to her "spouse"...so this whole thing about marriage (or not allowing it) really gets complicated.