But it had to be based on some sort of precedent. You can’t for example, pay $10K down on something, change your mind about it, then expect to get your down payment back when you were the one who breached the contract.
I may be wrong but I never thought an engagement was a “legally binding” contract. More of a moral contract or promise so to speak.
Conditional Gift
The emerging approach on engagement rings, which has been adopted by a majority of states, is that an engagement ring is a conditional gift, which is conditioned upon marriage between the parties. If the condition does not occur, i.e., if the parties do not marry, then the gift is not completed and ownership of the ring reverts to the individual who gave (and presumably purchased) the ring.
Under this approach, courts refuse to consider which party is to blame for the failed engagement. As the Supreme Court of Kansas observed, courts may not be able to determine the precise reason that a relationship ended. Quite simply, courts who follow this approach do not want to wade into the murky waters of assessing fault in a breakup. States that have adopted this approach include Iowa, Kansas, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, among others.
As stated above, Jack gave Jill an engagement ring in exchange for her promise to marry. However, Jill gets cold feet and backs out of the engagement. In a state following the conditional gift approach, the engagement ring reverts to Jack because the condition upon which the ring was given, a marriage between the parties, never occurred.