Posted on 05/24/2014 9:49:11 PM PDT by canuck_conservative
... Sterling revoked gal pal V. Stivianos tickets, parking passes and luxury suite access to Los Angeles Clippers games in April, possibly touching off a crazy chain of events that ended with him losing his high-flying basketball franchise, according to the LA Times.
Shelly Sterling the owners estranged wife filed a lawsuit against Stivano in March, demanding she return a laundry list of expensive gifts that Donald Sterling had given her.
Six days after that lawsuit was filed, Donald Sterling cut off Stiviano from Clippers games. When a team employee reached out to Stiviano, she texted a seemingly enigmatic response.
No tell Mr. Sterling that I dont need anything nor do I want anything, she reportedly texted. But thanks for asking. LET THE GAMES BEGAN.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
She wasn’t just “bringing men to the games”, but to his luxury box. That might tend to tick a guy off.
.... I know the race-baters know for a fact that this whole thing wasn't a setup but rather pure racism .... but this sure sounds like a setup.
I’m waiting for the NBA to be issuing an apology to Donald Sterling any minute now.
I never understood the idea that people could ‘demand’ the return of gifts. The only gift that I think of being owed in return is an engagement ring when a woman breaks off an engagement.
Like everything these days a “he’s racist” rules the day and makes news. Now being a racist is calling someone black
If you havent seen her interview with Dr. Phil, try to find it online. Very telling how she answers the questions. He gets her to contradict her statements on several occasions. Her motives are petty clear by the end. Shes half golddigger half crazy IMO. Also has had multiple aliases. .....Freakin little grifter.
I would love to see this attention whore put under oath and asked a bevy of straight questions —
> I would love to see this attention whore put under oath and asked a bevy of straight questions
I wonder how any others she’s dug her claws into. They’ don’t call them “gold diggers” for nothing.
I dated a “Christian” woman (I might add she was quite stunning) who shared with me she kept an engagement ring from a previous relationship. Her reasoning was it was proper etiquette.
She then asked me to take photos to help her sell it as she knew I had a very high-end camera.
That caught my attention. Big time. To me, it was like looking into her heart and seeing her character...or lack thereof.
I began to understand why she had been divorced twice.
Our relationship ended shortly after that moment.
Thank God!
I’d say if the guy breaks the engagement, it’s hers.
But if she breaks the engagement, it goes right back to the guy.
Let me summon some indignation and sympathy for Don.
Nope. Don’t have any.
He’s an idiot for putting himself in this situation. Did he really think she cared for him?
The ring could have been in his family.
In addition, she had no moral right to keep it regardless of who broke the engagement.
If the woman keeps the ring, that’s the same as stealing. Absolutely no moral reason for her to keep it...especially if she was planning to sell it.
No twisting of reality can change morality.
I agree with you, with one caveat. If the gal keeps that ring, it's for sentimental reasons or memories, not to be sold or used by someone else.
Other gifts shouln't be returned or asked for, unless someone wants to return them.
I disagree. The idea that a man “gives” an engagement ring to a woman as a promise of marriage, breaks that promise, and somehow is due the ring back means that she’s just renting out her finger for his claim on her as long as she so interests him. That is gross and creepy.
Rather sad you missed the morality aspect...
That’d be a sorry sentiment—holding onto a ring from someone who had humiliated her like that.
I think once any gift is given, it’s within the recipient’s right to do as he or she pleases with it. Perhaps she’ll find herself in a situation where she desperately needs the money for herself or a loved one.
Now, it actually might help her to reach closure and move on if she returned the ring to him, and that may be a noble gesture on her part. But I don’t consider it an obligation.
You seem to miss the morality aspect of that which is given—and that which somehow you think is conditionally given, dependent upon the changing mood of the giver.
Id say if the guy breaks the engagement, its hers.
But if she breaks the engagement, it goes right back to the guy.
_______________
Legally a ring is consideration to bind a contract and returns to the owner if the contract is broken. I think there have been a number of court rulings to this effect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.