New South Wales Supreme Court says engagement rings are men's property, the ex-fiancée must return the engagement ring if she refuses to marry.
When wedding plans turn sour, unwilling brides should resist any urge to toss out the engagement ring, the NSW Supreme Court has determined.
Vicky Papathansoupouos was engaged to ex-fiancé Andrew Vacopoulos. He gave Vicky a $15,250 diamond engagement ring. After some time Vicky called off the wedding and told her father to dispose of the ring, with some photographs and mementos of their failed relationship, which he threw in the garbage. Andrew found out about the disposal of his wedding ring so he launched legal action in a Manly (not made up, it is in Australia) court for compensation.
However, Vicky has a different story, she said that Andrew told her to keep the ring and she then chose to dispose it off later.
The NSW Supreme court dismissed an appeal by Vicky against an earlier decision that had ordered her to compensate her ex-fiancé Andrew Vacopoulos $15,250 for the dumping of the engagement ring.
Justice Rex Smart said in the eyes of the law, Ms. Papathanasoupoulos was holding her ex-fiancé’s property.
"I do not accept (the) contention that once (Mr Vacopoulos) ... left the engagement ring on the table it became her property to keep or dispose of as she wished," Justice Smart said.
The court found if a woman refuses to marry her fiancé she cannot keep the ring, she must return the engagement ring to her fiancé.
The court found that if a woman refuses without legal justification to marry her fiancé she cannot keep and must return any engagement ring.
By turning down the offer of marriage, Ms Papathanasopoulos had rejected the "conditional gift" of the ring, the court found.
Mr. Smart said just because she refused to marry doesn’t give her right to dispose them in garbage bin. Holding the small item is not a great chore or task.
He rejected the claim that when Mr. Vacopoulos told his ex-fiancée she could keep the ring it became an "absolute gift", as there was evidence it was said in a bid to salvage the relationship.
I think Judge made the correct decision, she should have returned it, it is his property not hers. Is the Supreme Court right in its decision?
