engagement over who gets the ring?

[TimM]

Wow, diamonds suck:

"Surprisingly, diamonds are not rare, whatsoever! This might come as a shock to a person who has just paid 1,000 dollars for a one-carat stone, but there are enough diamonds in the world to give every man, woman, and child in America a cupful. Although they have the best reputation, diamonds are not the most expensive gemstone, either. A top-quality ruby would be double the expense of a diamond of the same carat. A diamond’s expense comes from a human-imposed drought rather than a true drought. The whole theory of supply and demand plays very nicely here into the hands of the diamond-governing corporations!

What is rare, however, is a good diamond. This next part might be bad news for you diamond-lovers out there. If we define a good diamond in general terms as one that has a large carat, is perfectly white, that has no fissures or cracks or clouds, has all of its potential brilliance, and will appreciate over time, less than 25 out of 1000 diamonds sold in the US would be good diamonds. The average person in the US pays twice what they should for their engagement ring, and the average diamond has been laser-drilled, is tinted yellow, and has cracks, breaks or carbon that you can see with your own eyes."

http://www.belgianexperts.com/diamonds.php

[kibble420]

I still concur that anyone who spends "two months salary" on a rock is a TOOL!

[MrMon]

There is a definitive answer to this question, and it's the same as it has always been - broken engagement means the ring is returned, regardless of the reason the engagement was broken.

Miss Manners is far more eloquent in her reasoning, so I'll turn it over to her:
[ QUOTE ]
In one state after another, judges are being asked to rule on whether ladies whose engagements are broken are legally required to give back the engagement rings to those cads they once agreed to marry.

There are several things about this development that Miss Manners doesn't understand:

1. Why are the courts involved in this question at all, when there has always been an etiquette rule on the books requiring that the ring must be returned when the engagement is -- for whatever reason -- defunct?
2. Why would a lady want to keep a token symbolizing love that has proved false?
3. Especially if she has been jilted, why would a lady forgo one of the grand gestures of all times -- flinging the ring back into the face of the despised lover?
4. How can Miss Manners be so naive?


To answer the last question first, Miss Manners chooses to be naive. That is because naive is the least unflattering characterization now used for people like her -- people who believe that personal conduct might be guided by something other than financial advantage.

Everyone else thinks it stupid for a lady who has gotten hold of a diamond to allow it out of her grasp unless the strong arm of the law comes and pries it away from her.

But Miss Manners is not so naive as to believe that disappointed brides have no care for their own dignity. Rather, she is afraid that they believe that their hope of salvaging dignity from this humiliating situation is to inflict whatever financial damage they can (which is the answer to the third question). And since breach-of-promise laws have gone out of fashion, they take what is at hand, so to speak (and that is the answer to the second).

Sometimes this is justified as recouping what has been spent on wedding preparations, and is invoked even when the engagement has been broken by the ring-wearer. More often, it is seen as compensation for emotional distress. Whether the charge is disillusionment or desertion, there is a punitive element.

"I deserve it," is the phrase the ladies in question often use.

Probably not, as it turns out. The courts are ruling otherwise. The comparison being made -- still in financial terms -- is to the down payment on a house; when the deal is called off, the payment is returned.

This reasoning brings Miss Manners to that troubling first question: Do we really want the law to enforce engagements? Of course, everyone expects the law to make up for all of life's disappointments. Nevertheless, a broken engagement, however painful, is one less broken marriage. Miss Manners does not defend heart-breakers; she only wants to protect the innocent from marrying them.

And she does want to protect the dignity of the wounded.

That is why she doesn't want them to furnish proof that they are so grasping that the symbolism of an engagement ring has entirely escaped them, and they see nothing but its monetary value.

What kind of punishment is it to show a cad that he was justified?

[/ QUOTE ]

[BluffTHIS!]

<font color="green"> [censored] </font>,

He should keep telling all his and her friends that they are still engaged and he considers them to just be going through a rough patch, which will of course get back to her. Then if he is lucky she will make a point of giving the ring back to end the engagement.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
from a non legal standpoint, is the girl entitled to keep the ring if the guy wants it back or should she return it to the guy?

[/ QUOTE ]
She most certainly ought to return the ring, whether he cheated or not. This is the longstanding rule and the appropriate thing to do. Legally, I have no clue.

[Sponger.]

[ QUOTE ]
hopefully I'll see her on the street giving $10 bjs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully I see her before anyone else does. I'll take 5!

[TexArcher]

She should return the ring.

Legally, I don't think he can expect a court to make her give it back to him, technically it's a gift.

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
I still concur that anyone who spends "two months salary" on a rock is a TOOL!

[/ QUOTE ]

You're single, right?

[pryor15]

how does it change if the ring is a family heirloom? does it then always go back to the family it came from?

[ChipWrecked]

Haven't read replies but if he cheated he's out the ring.


If they just changed their minds she returns the ring.