t's the worst-case scenario of weddings, the sort of thing that could make Miss Manners implode: A bitter broken engagement leads to the courtroom, where jilted lovers duke it out over rights to the wedding ring. Legally, a bride-to-be's diamond — which often costs tens of thousands of dollars — actually represents a "binding contract," explains Slate's Casey Greenfield. If the bride breaks her "promise" to marry, she's bound to return the ring. But this law sometimes gets a little murky. An excerpt:
“Christopher Reinhold of Staten Island says the diamond ring he gave to Collette DiPierro, who broke off their engagement in September 2009 after four months and growing doubts, is rightfully his. He has sued her to get it back.…But DiPierro says that because Reinhold proposed on her birthday, the $17,500 ring was a gift, not a token symbolizing a promise to marry. So she can keep it. Or, actually, spend it: Neither Reinhold nor DiPierro claims sentimental attachment; both would be happy with the ring's cash value.
“Contract law takes the view that the exchange of a ring for the promise to wed constitutes a binding contract. It's not the most romantic narrative, but in a court fight over a diamond, romance already lies in the dust....”
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- Who are the real gay marriage bigots?
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- Why is American internet so slow?
- Don't worry: World War III will almost certainly never happen
- Watch The Daily Show mock Fox News' confused man-crush on Vladimir Putin
- Religious liberty should be a liberal value, too
- What the collapse of the Ming Dynasty can tell us about American decline
- 22 TV shows to watch in 2014
- The new bride who had a horrifying allergic reaction to her husband's sperm
- This energy source could solve all of our problems — so why is no one talking about it?
Subscribe to the Week