Question

Jack and Jackie had been living together in Kansas for about a year. Jack wanted to marry Jackie, so he bought a $10,000 engagement ring and romantically gave it to her when they went out to dinner. She accepted his proposal of marriage and the ring and went about arranging their wedding ceremony for about six months later. She had to make several non-refundable deposits. But about 3 weeks before the wedding, without any explanation Jack called off the engagement and demanded that Jackie return the engagement ring, which she refused to do. Is Jack entitled to get the ring back or can Jackie keep it? For up to 20 points, prepare and post on the discussion board your case brief of the following Kansas case: Heiman v. Parrish, 262 Kan.926 (1997) Use Google or another browser to find it. A format for your brief is posted in the course Announcements along with my grading form. I will also send them to you by email. At the end of your brief include your personal comments about the case, and be sure to tell me if you agree or disagree with the court's majority opinion written by Judge McFarland and why. You may comment on the dissent by Judge Marquardt, but remember it is not the decision of the court. Also include your thoughts on how a couple wanting to marry could avoid a situation like this and how they might lessen or avoid the monetary impact when one of them breaks off the engagement, i.e. open a joint bank account equally funded to cover expenses, etc. As to how long your brief should be, a condensed version of your understanding of the case is what is needed.

Answer 1

Jack shall not be entitled to the ring that he gave it to Jackie in contemplation of the engagement and further marriage. Even if it is considered on principle of contract here the jack who gave the ring to jakie with intention to get marry and later on he is the same person who breaches his promise and also asks for return of ring. Under contract it is bad in law that the one who actually breaches the contract is awarded with damages or return of ring or anything and ring shall not be given special importance. Whether it is under any law it is very illogical to have ring return to the person who makes the promise and breaches it himself. Thus, here in this case also, whether it is a dissent judgment by some judge or not, the primary idea is to look at logic as well and law is based non logic and reasonability. Thus Jakie can keep back the ring.