Posted on 05/24/2014 9:49:11 PM PDT by canuck_conservative
... Sterling revoked gal pal V. Stiviano’s tickets, parking passes and luxury suite access to Los Angeles Clippers games in April, possibly touching off a crazy chain of events that ended with him losing his high-flying basketball franchise, according to the LA Times.
Shelly Sterling — the owner’s estranged wife — filed a lawsuit against Stivano in March, demanding she return a laundry list of expensive gifts that Donald Sterling had given her.
Six days after that lawsuit was filed, Donald Sterling cut off Stiviano from Clippers games. When a team employee reached out to Stiviano, she texted a seemingly enigmatic response.
“No tell Mr. Sterling that I don’t need anything nor do I want anything,” she reportedly texted. “But thanks for asking. LET THE GAMES BEGAN.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I know that has been a ruling and I think it is wrong—perhaps going back to the days when women didn’t hold equal property rights?
Yeah. She gave herself away.
Some people, when they look back, tend to focus on the positives of situations. Besides which, humiliation would be if some other woman ended up wearing that ring!
No, I read this relatively recently.
But it had to be based on some sort of precedent. You can’t for example, pay $10K down on something, change your mind about it, then expect to get your down payment back when you were the one who breached the contract.
I may be wrong but I never thought an engagement was a “legally binding” contract. More of a moral contract or promise so to speak.
Conditional Gift
The emerging approach on engagement rings, which has been adopted by a majority of states, is that an engagement ring is a conditional gift, which is conditioned upon marriage between the parties. If the condition does not occur, i.e., if the parties do not marry, then the gift is not completed and ownership of the ring reverts to the individual who gave (and presumably purchased) the ring.
Under this approach, courts refuse to consider which party is to blame for the failed engagement. As the Supreme Court of Kansas observed, courts may not be able to determine the precise reason that a relationship ended. Quite simply, courts who follow this approach do not want to wade into the murky waters of assessing fault in a breakup. States that have adopted this approach include Iowa, Kansas, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, among others.
As stated above, Jack gave Jill an engagement ring in exchange for her promise to marry. However, Jill gets cold feet and backs out of the engagement. In a state following the conditional gift approach, the engagement ring reverts to Jack because the condition upon which the ring was given, a marriage between the parties, never occurred.
Yeah, I understand a number of states have such a take on it, but I still say, that morally whoever backs out should do whatever possible to lessen the harm and pain inflicted on the other. In the case of the man, the least that should be expected is for him to to expect his “gift” back.
All the more reason that a man who makes such a moral contract or promise and then backs out shouldn’t go looking for his “gift” back.
Yeah, I understand a number of states have such a take on it, but I still say, that morally whoever backs out should do whatever possible to lessen the harm and pain inflicted on the other. In the case of the man, the least that should be expected is for him to to expect his “gift” back.
_________________
The man gets the ring back no matter what, not a gift, it is instead, consideration.
I don’t know how many ways to say this, but I know that’s how many states interpret it—I just don’t think it’s right for a man to break an engagement and then also expect the ring back.
That Dr. Phil showed up in the papers Sterling filed today. http://i.usatoday.net/sports/!sterling/2014-05-27%20Secured%20DTS%20Answer%20to%20NBA%20Charge.pdf
Among the points made: The conversation was last September.
Check the reply he filed at the link above. He’s making it very clear he didn’t grant permission to be recorded, and repeatedly refers to it as an illegal recording.
Thanks for sharing, hope in the end she gets whst she deserves...............a stay in the iron bar hotel, or atleast broke and destitute.
What link above?
I certainly don't see that at the NYPost source page.
Post 32 has a link to the Sterling response.
Certainly his using that as an argument in his response sounds good but..
I noticed that he never mentions a police investigation or a police report or complaint..
When you tell your insurance company that insured property has been stolen the first thing they ask is if you filed a police report.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.