THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: Aimless on 26 Jul 2008, 06:56
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
No no I was only addressing the implication that he did the right thing because she's some sort of ultra-vindictive demon bitch. I think he did the wrong thing proposing to her in the first place :o
-
So you're saying he knew he was going to back out from the very beginning...?
-
Quote: “Really, we believe now that he never intended to follow through on the promise to marry,” Sartain added.
If he never intended to marry her, and made her lose 50k a year in wages, then yes, he had it coming.
-
I don't understand why they believe that. What could he possibly have had to gain from pretending to want to marry her? Both sides agree that he knew she had at least some debt, so it's not as though he thought he'd be benefitting financially. The $30,000 he gave her and money from the 2-carat ring could have bought a lot of whores in Vegas, if that was his game. It just doesn't make sense.
-
I agree with the ruling. You have the right to protect your investment, just because he didnt sign a binding contract doesnt mean he is free from obligation. Marriages are expensive, he had plenty of time to stop it, but they day of... twice, is not acceptable. Now I will say that this ruling sets a shitty precedent because this is an extreme case.
-
She still would have already paid for a lot of things the first time around. What's astounding is that she agreed to marry him a second time around.
-
I agree that the woman was perhaps a bit (verry) stupid, but if a dumb person is victim of a fraud, it's still a fraud.
-
It seems to me that they both made stupid choices (in proposing, and in accepting); but I guess they didn't seem so at the time. I suppose that the jury had more information to make their decision on than we have - the system is well known for getting things right most of the time at least.
-
From what I gathered from the article, no where did it come across as if the man was trying to get something out of the woman. If you're having second thoughts about marriage it seems perfectly normal to call it off to me, rather than be miserable or have to go through a divorce. I don't seem to be getting where the man went wrong. Sure, maybe he couldn't make up his mind, but I don't think that warrants a 150,000 fine. It's not like they were ever legally bound. I don't get why the jury was actually allowed to be involved. This seems completely ludicrous to me.
-
An Oral Contract is still a contract. If you agree to get married, and someone else is carrying the expense... TWICE! Then I saw fine away.
-
But an oral contract is in no way a legitimate contract that the state has any power to enforce. It's none of their business, and the fact that they feel they can hand out fines for personal problems is worrying.
If the woman was silly enough to toss everything over board, twice, for the same man, she can't blame him for her rash actions. The fact that it was the second time gives her less of a right to the money.
-
But it's not a fraud! Unless he gets off on dumping women after getting engaged with them there is no logical reason why he would propose to her in the first place. Should you be punished with gigantic fines for having second thoughts about the person you are spending the rest of your life with?
Sorry, I was unclear, that was an example. This isn't fraud, it's more making a promise you can't keep, and end up ruining parts of someones life because of it.
-
But an oral contract is in no way a legitimate contract that the state has any power to enforce. It's none of their business, and the fact that they feel they can hand out fines for personal problems is worrying.
If the woman was silly enough to toss everything over board, twice, for the same man, she can't blame him for her rash actions. The fact that it was the second time gives her less of a right to the money.
The first part of your post is right on the money, but I would say she can blame him for the monetary losses she incurred. The state shouldn't have a part in that though.
-
People have been trying this for years. In the UK at least a marriage licence is one of the most binding contracts you can ever sign. Under UK law however there is no protection for people who are engaged. That, under the law at least, is purely an intention to get married but not legally binding.
-
The first part of your post is right on the money, but I would say she can blame him for the monetary losses she incurred. The state shouldn't have a part in that though.
Granted, she can blame him, but my main issue with this lies with the involvement of the state.
-
From now on, if I buy a girl dinner (twice) and she doesn't sleep with me, Im going to court, and get that supper money back! Fight the good fight!
-
Edit: I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
-
Bringing a suit against the guy is overboard, and unprecedented. But he does kind of sound like a douche.
-
@linds: I don't see anything in the article about him not helping her pay for anything. In fact, just the opposite; in the article he points out all the money he's given her for help with debts and such. And your references to the cost of the wedding, er did you read the article? There was no wedding.
Moreover, suggestions that the man needs to repay her for costs incurred to her by the relationship ignore the costs incurred to him. For starters, there's that big ass ring he bought. And the end of the article makes it pretty clear that she is keeping the ring (or more to the point, she's going to sell the ring and keep the money.)
Now I'm not saying that she should pay him back for the ring in order to make things financially even. I think it is perfectly within her rights to keep the ring; after all, he chose to give it to her. What I'm getting at is that in the exact same way she chose to give up her job and move to be with him. It is not just for people to be able to (successfully) sue each other to compensate themselves when their decisions don't work out the way they hoped.
-
I remember reading, but then I read it again and now I feel like an ass.
-
He was stupid for proposing when he knew she had debts and was possibly crazy in the first place. She was an idiot for accepting after he didn't propose the first time around like she expected him to and for leaving a perfectly lucrative job for a wishy-washy dude. And we all know that Florida is retarded all the way around.
Conclusions: Don't move to Florida.