An engagement ring is a gift, not compensation in a contract. Accepting a gift does not constitute a contract.
This is actually a common case presented in the first contract Law, or Business course. It has been ruled on, and is well established in case law.
A contract requires both parties to agree to a contract, that there be substantial compensation, and that it be for a lawful purpose.
Marrying for money is not technically a lawful purpose (prostitution).
Since this guy is loaded, his lawyers will pursue whatever (within reason) he wants them to pursue. The lawyers could certainly badger and harass his ex for him, but he really has no right to insist on the return of the ring.
>> An engagement ring is a gift, not compensation in a contract. Accepting a gift does not constitute a contract <<
A valid cause of action doesn’t necessarily require status under contract law. “Breach of promise to marry” has sometimes been recognized as a common law tort, contract law notwithstanding. I believe this tort has now been eliminated by legislation in most places. But it may still survive in other jurisdictions.
Judy Judy has disagreed with your assessment on multiple occasions.
An engagement ring is given as a conditional gift in contemplation of marriage.
No marriage and the ring goes back to the man.
Wrong. The “engagement” ring is given in contemplation of marriage. No marriage—return the ring, no matter who’s fault it is.
The lawyers could certainly badger and harass his ex for him, but he really has no right to insist on the return of the ring.
an engagement ring is not a gift, it is consideration in a contract. It must be returned.