Your Name (s):

College Law: Chapter 6-Contracts:

Considerationhttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/fashion/weddings/should-you-give-the-engagement-ring-back
.html

Should You Give the Engagement Ring Back?

Will you marry me? Well, it turns out that diamonds, at least in the
New York courts, aren’t forever. Diamonds aren’t even dreamy.
Diamonds, given after a “will you marry me?” with a “yes” to
follow, are a contract. This is why so many of them end up in
court.

The New York legal system deems, in essence, that a broken

engagement is no one’s fault, and the ring should be given back
to the giver, with few exceptions. Most states have adopted that
approach.

But Montana hasn’t: It classifies the ring as an unconditional gift.

The recipient keeps it!

California and Texas take a middle-of-the road approach: the recipient of the ring is expected to
return it, unless the giver called off the engagement.

So, will New York courts ever reconsider? Maybe when a ring is clearly given as a Christmas gift,
Valentine’s Day gift, or birthday gift or such without the proposal accompanying. But once a
marriage proposal is extended and accepted — once the promise is made — no matter what
day of the year, that ring is no longer considered a gift in the state of NY (and a lot of other
states). They look at it as a contract to enter into marriage. Or possibly if the ring was considered
payment for financial agreements between the couple. That could include a down payment on
a house, a loan, or living expenses.

Most states embraced the no-fault rule after the 1997 case of Heiman v. Parrish, which served as
a precedent. There, the Kansas Supreme Court decided that no matter who broke the
engagement, the $9,033 ring should be given back to the giver. “Ordinarily, the ring should be
returned to the donor, regardless of fault,” the court found.

The Kansas court then put forth reasons relationships end, in explaining why the court would want
to wash its hands of the entire mess for example:

• The parties have nothing in common.

• One party cannot stand prospective in-laws.

• The parties’ pets do not get along.

 Your Assignment: Questions due end of the period, saved on Google Classroom.
You can work with a partner and make sure answers say “we”!
Only one person needs to submit. Do at the end of the period TODAY!
1) Remembering our notes, do you think this case is an example of a bilateral contract or a
unilateral contract? [FYI - there really is no right or wrong answer as long as you explain your
side! It depends how YOU view an engagement and whether you think it's a promise for a
promise (bilateral) or a promise for an act (unilateral)]

We believe that marriage (or even engagement) is a bilateral agreement between two
people. Just like a regular contract I’m any other form of life, one person is proposing a
“contract” to the other and the person is agreeing to be a part of the contract. Both parties
are responsible for upholding a marriage, and by agreeing to engagement you are also
agreeing to take those steps with the other party. Bilateral means both parties contribute to
the engagement which we believe would one hundred percent apply in an engagement as
well. In addition, both parties are also planning the wedding and honeymoon, and most likely
contributing funds as well. One person is not only giving something to the other they are asking
someone to be a part of this binding relationship.

This article mentions the1997 case of Heiman v. Parrish and how it served as a precedent.
What is a precedent again? Why does it apply to this article?
A precedent is a decision of a court that is used as an example to decide a similar case. In
Heiman v. Parrish, the court basically ruled that the ring should be “returned to the donor
regardless”. Because of that decision, many states use this as a precedent to decide on most
engagement ring cases.

2) We learned laws are different from state to state. In NY State, the “giver” of the ring receives
the ring back in the case of a broken engagement. There are some exceptions though
(Montana being one).
In New York, An engagement ring is considered a conditional gift, where the condition is
that the marriage actually takes place. This means that if the marriage does not take place
and the bachelor asks for the ring back, then the potential bride will most likely have to
return the engagement ring to the bachelor.
Do you think there is consideration in this contract and an engagement is an enforceable
contract? What is consideration? Is it a gift that she can keep? Should she give it back
because a contract existed? Define consideration and use these questions to explain your
answer.
Consideration means something that is bargained for by a promisor. Consideration is
necessary for a contract. The consideration in this case would be the ring. The person
proposing to the other party is giving the ring as a promise or a “binding” agreement that the
wedding will happen. If we are considering an engagement a bilateral contract, where both
parties have to uphold a promise, then the ring would absolutely be considered a
consideration. The person proposing bought the ring with their funds and gave it to the fiancé
in a bilateral agreement that the wedding would 100 percent happen. In this case we believe
that she should give it back and we also believe most people probably do.