Thread replies: 22
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
Anonymous
Canadian judge rules woman can keep $14,300 engagement ring 2017-06-17 04:25:23 Post No. 37774968
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Canadian judge rules woman can keep $14,300 engagement ring 2017-06-17 04:25:23 Post No. 37774968
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 38943893893483.jpg (51KB, 960x540px) Image search:
[Google]
51KB, 960x540px
Canadian judge rules woman can keep $14,300 engagement ring
Anonymous
2017-06-17 04:25:23
Post No. 37774968
[Report]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40294530
>Lauren Arbuckle's ex-fiance sued her after their relationship ended because of squabbles over wedding finances.
>Devin Sherrington sued for the return of the ring and a $6,000 loan after the three-year relationship fell apart.
>A Nova Scotia court found that although she ended the relationship, it was not her idea to break up so she did not have to return the gift.
>Small claims adjudicator Gregg Knudsen said that since the 3.25 carat diamond ring was gifted on the condition the two would marry, the entire matter rested on who ended the engagement.
>If Ms Arbuckle, a hairstylist and make-up artist, ended it, then she must relinquish the gift, he said. However, if Mr Sherrington, a personal trainer, broke it off, then the gift was rightfully hers.
>The couple had been engaged for one year before deciding to call it quits because the two could not agree about how to pay for the wedding.
>Ms Arbuckle wanted a lavish affair, while Mr Sherrington wanted something more cost-conscious.
>He didn't believe his fiancee could afford her half of the wedding cost, the court heard, and feared he would get stuck paying for the whole bill.
>He suggested postponing the wedding but she did not want to. Finally, she decided to end the relationship.
>At first, Mr Sherrington told Ms Arbuckle she could keep the ring, text messages show. But later, he asked for it back, as well as money he says he loaned her for a trip to Mexico.
>Ultimately, Mr Knudsen found that it was Mr Sherrington who called off the engagement, and so the ring rightfully belongs to Ms Arbuckle - although he also ruled that she had to pay him back about C$3,000 for the Mexico trip.
>"I find the postponement was an indefinite postponement, sufficient to treat the engagement as over. Ms. Arbuckle may have ended the relationship but Mr. Sherrington ended the engagement," he said.
>>
>>37774968
The problem was spending that much money on a fucking engagement ring. Marriage truly is a meme and even the tax benefits are starting to look less and less good.
>>
>>37774968
As enraging as it is, the case is solid. The ring is a gift.
Engagement rings were a mistake. Nobody used to buy them a century ago.
>>
Well, she's in the right. You can't gift someone something and then demand it back.
You may if the other person is no asshole tho. Guys fault for being a retarded faggot.
>>
>>37774968
It sucks but he deserved it
As >>37775006 stated, marriage is just a meme and has no real point besides some sort of religious fulfillment
Plus women are absolute trash and giving them anything other than your penis is a mistake and you absoluetly deserve everything if it comes and bites you in the ass
>>
>>37774968
No hymen no diamond. He learned it the hard way.
>>
>>37775006
This. It was a gift, which you can't just take back. The fault is the man's for being stupid enough to give a 14k ring to a stupid whore
>>
>>37775055
>and has no real point besides some sort of religious fulfillment
The point is economic stability for the children. Not defending, just pointing it out.
>>
>>37774968
>Ms Arbuckle wanted a lavish affair, while Mr Sherrington wanted something more cost-conscious.
Should've thought of that before giving a woman a near $15k ring
>>
>>37775026
You don't understand, an engagement ring is not just a typical gift, it's a contract between man and woman and if there's no marriage, then they're no ring.
Anyway, the most crazy thing about this is the Judges words:
"I find the postponement was an indefinite postponement, sufficient to treat the engagement as over. Ms. Arbuckle may have ended the relationship but Mr. Sherrington ended the engagement,"
Somehow the Judge decided that it wasn't the woman who terminated the wedding (which she did), but the man terminated the wedding since he said he wanted to postpone it.
This is all kinds of wrong.
>>
>>37775097
>The point is economic stability for the children
I don't think you need to be married to have stability for a child, just work together finacially
Plus there are quite a few people who are married and don't have children
>>
>>37775120
Is this part of the law? This changes everything. Engagement rings aren't that popular here so I probably misread this.
>>
>>37775120
The ring for was the original wedding date. He postponed it without giving a definite date, ergo postponed indefinitely, making the ring hers indefinitely. The ring was not for the relationship
t. Trained by Scholmo Rosenstein in art of law
>>
>>37775167
Well of course, it's established by the state to force families to stay together because most people aren't emotionally and economically stable
>>
>>37775055
The only real benefit to marriage aside from religious stuff are some tax breaks and even then I don't think such a thing is worth it, and this is coming from someone who hates high taxes spent on bullshit.
>>37775066
I just don't understand why he spent 14k on a fucking ring. I get it's for marriage but if she absolutely must have such an expensive ring then chances are she is not a keeper at all, as evidenced by the news article.
>>37775120
Well it is a Canadian court, so such a case isn't surprising. Not that other courts are better because they're not, but this isn't exactly a shocker here.
>>
>>37775179
That's fucked upp
>>
File: 1497058396216.png (13KB, 439x461px) Image search:
[Google]
13KB, 439x461px
Even someone who hates women can't find sy.oathy for this loser. His fault for wanting a spoiled cunt and even feeding her 14k
>>
>>37774968
At least he learned his lesson. Maybe now he'll think twice about marriage. Or maybe he'll think second times the charm.
>>
>spending tens of thousands on wedding rings and a wedding reception aren't enough
>You also need to spend tens of thousands on an engagement ring and engagement party
My parents will pay for that shit. If it were up to me, I would get a court marriage
>>
>>37775097
Maybe I'm becoming too old for this shit, but if someone told me he got a 14k $ ring, I would smack his head.
People who are soon to be married should put their money to good use or in the bank.
>>
File: 1497033086265.png (371KB, 500x701px) Image search:
[Google]
371KB, 500x701px
His fault for interacting with women
>>
>>37774968
Well he gave it to her, its not his anymore. He cant just take it back once he has given the engagement ring away as it dosent belong to him anymore. Maybe he should have been more careful
Thread posts: 22
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3