1L Hypo Exercise
The facts are presented here. Use what you have learned in Contracts and Property to explain who should win this law suit and why. Does Porreco v. Porreco, 811 A.2d 566, 574 (Pa. 2002) (Eakin, J., dissenting) apply? Bonus points for Civ Pro and Crim Law arguments.
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 4:18 PM
5 Comments:
We know from the sanctity of marriage discussion surrounding prop 8, that the fundamental purpose of marriage is procreation.
The ring, therefore, was exchanged in consideration for a promise to procreate -- homeboy gets either the ring, or specific performance.
Everyone knows they end up selling the ring to pay the lawyers. Then the guy opens a restaurant on Durant that sells crappy fries.
Cal. Civ. Code 1590.
I think everyone should read CCC 1590 referenced by 11:59. Good find.
In light of 1590, it seems clear you need to document everything:
"This is a follow-up e-mail to confirm in writing that you dumped me last night. You also called me a selfish asshole when I asked for the engagement ring back. If this is not your understanding, please contact me immediately."
I wonder how many other jurisdictions have an equivalent to that section. I doubt it, but I do know this sort of case has come up before, many times, around the country (applying traditional contract laws to marriage arrangements).
Looks like the bride-to-be repudiated the contract pretty clearly in the ring-throwing incident. Groom-to-be's error was failing to secure the ring at that time. When she said she did not want to marry him anymore, he became entitled to treat the contract as breached and demand return of the ring.
Post a Comment
<< Home