Fun Stuff > CHATTER

Man sued for getting cold feet (twice)

(1/6) > >>

Aimless:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25846393/?GT1=43001

Just wondering what y'all feel about this. I've seen several reactions that mostly seem to stem from the belief that the law should have nothing to do with the realm of wuv, or the belief that being shafted is just "life" and the law shouldn't have anything to do with that either. Another class of objections I've seen is that it's not consistent, because it is apparently the same as granting rights that come with marriage to a person who wasn't married--and the US govt. has problems with doing that, eg. when it comes to people who live together (homosexual or otherwise :)) without being married.

To my naive mind, the ruling makes sense, because she did make a significant financial and practical commitment, and he did seem to have gone back on his word.

If you think this was a ridiculous ruling, then can you think of any similar situation in which you would find it appropriate to award damages?

Jimmy the Squid:
If he didn't sign a binding legal contract specifically stating that he would marry her on a set date then it's pretty fucked up that the dude should be sued for not wanting to marry the damn woman. I also think it kind of goes to show that he probably made the right decision if she is going to sue him for that.

StaedlerMars:
The fact that she moved away was her own choice. It's not like he forced her to move (which is what I'm getting from the story).

She made a bad decision. Shit happens. The ruling is ridiculous.

jhocking:
As painful as the situation must be for her, it's pretty sad that she won this court case. While telling her "shit happens" would be entirely too cruel, the simple fact is that without a legal agreement involved then a court shouldn't be squeezing money from the guy. And as for her decision, you'd think being a divorced mother (not to mention that this couple already split once) she would know things might fall apart.

And yeah, I agree with jimmy that this shows he probably made the his decision for good reasons. Imagine what the divorce would be like if they got married and then split.

Aimless:
What's the status of verbal contracts in the US anyway?

And also, why does this show he somehow did the right thing? It's not like regular divorces don't also involve money going from one party to the other, and I don't see why it would be exceptionally damning to want compensation.

She wasn't forced to move--it's just that they wouldn't have gotten married if she hadn't, so she had to choose between the job and a marriage. Are you saying she should somehow have known that accepting was the wrong choice? Or that, having been divorced, one should never trust relationships again? I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page