• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ga. Man Must Pay $50,000 After Breaking Engagement to Fiancee, Appeals Court Says

MaggieD said:
That's been around forever. Do you think it's right that a couple get engaged, set a wedding date, plan their wedding, one of them puts down deposits all over hell and gone for their big day . . . and then the other cancels and thinks they ought to just walk away?

I don't.
Click to expand...

I do.
 
MaggieD said:
That's been around forever. Do you think it's right that a couple get engaged, set a wedding date, plan their wedding, one of them puts down deposits all over hell and gone for their big day . . . and then the other cancels and thinks they ought to just walk away?

I don't.
Click to expand...

Henrin said:
I do.
Click to expand...

So do I.
 
MaggieD said:
You're not only morally wrong, but legally as well.
Click to expand...

He didn't say it was morally right for someone to do that. But that's rather different from being able to sue them.
 
MaggieD said:
That's been around forever. Do you think it's right that a couple get engaged, set a wedding date, plan their wedding, one of them puts down deposits all over hell and gone for their big day . . . and then the other cancels and thinks they ought to just walk away?

I don't.
Click to expand...

I could get behind that if it could be plausibly demonstrated that the one being walked out on had done something horrible or kept particularly important information from the other, like being married already or being on the run from the mob. Otherwise I'm with you on this.
 
Cardinal said:
I could get behind that if it could be plausibly demonstrated that the one being walked out on had done something horrible or kept particularly important information from the other, like being married already or being on the run from the mob. Otherwise I'm with you on this.
Click to expand...

Same here.
 
MaggieD said:
You're not only morally wrong, but legally as well.
Click to expand...

I never said it was morally right for someone to do or that the law agreed with me. I just don't agree with the law.
 
Henrin said:
I never said it was morally right for someone to do or that the law agreed with me. I just don't agree with the law.
Click to expand...

You don't think breach of contract should be a suable offense?
 
cpgrad08 said:
Harder and Harder to be man when it comes to the American Legal System.
Click to expand...

So a guy that buys a woman an engagement ring, has a kid but wont marry the mother, but keeps her on as nanny & housekeeper while having other women on the side, and discourages her from having a career....is a "man?"
 
Cardinal said:
You don't think breach of contract should be a suable offense?
Click to expand...

The breach of contract to marry? Yeah, what?

And this idea of common law marriage mentioned in the article is complete and utter bull****. When is that idea going to finish dieing out?
 
Henrin said:
Breach to promise to marry? WTF is that? How in the hell do they prove that anyway?
Click to expand...

The $10,000 engagement ring he gave her?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
He didn't say it was morally right for someone to do that. But that's rather different from being able to sue them.
Click to expand...

I'm not on board with this case necessarily but in the example just given where the entire wedding has been planned and alot of money expended...then yes, I do believe they need to be compensated for that wasted $ if the other breaks the deal.
 
Henrin said:
The breach of contract to marry? Yeah, what?

And this idea of common law marriage mentioned in the article is complete and utter bull****. When is that idea going to finish dieing out?
Click to expand...

Actually, litigation isn't limited just to contract agreements. When I used "contract" I meant it in a highly informal sense, in this case meaning any agreement where expectations are understood of each other. In court, all you have to show for the most part is intent to follow through on an action. So, for example, if you send off an email, saying, "Hey Bob, I'll send you the check next Tuesday" a judge with likely consider this as clear intent that you meant to pay by that date, and not just any old time you felt flush with money. In this case, it would be extremely easy...excuse me, it was extremely easy... to determine that the husband-to-be had clear intent to marry this woman and that she had reasonable expectation to be taken care of. But as it turned out he was a complete and utter scumbag, and as is so often the case with utter scumbags it required the courts to make him do the right thing.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
So a guy that buys a woman an engagement ring, has a kid but wont marry the mother, but keeps her on as nanny & housekeeper while having other women on the side, and discourages her from having a career....is a "man?"
Click to expand...

My reference to man is in the General sense. If it was the other way around shouldn't have to pay him anything.
 
Cardinal said:
Actually, litigation isn't limited just to contract agreements. When I used "contract" I meant it in a highly informal sense, in this case meaning any agreement where expectations are understood of each other. In court, all you have to show for the most part is intent to follow through on an action. So, for example, if you send off an email, saying, "Hey Bob, I'll send you the check next Tuesday" a judge with likely consider this as clear intent that you meant to pay by that date, and not just any old time you felt flush with money. In this case, it would be extremely easy...excuse me, it was extremely easy... to determine that the husband-to-be had clear intent to marry this woman and that she had reasonable expectation to be taken care of. But as it turned out he was a complete and utter scumbag, and as is so often the case with utter scumbags it required the courts to make him do the right thing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm aware of that. It's why I never say a damn thing to anyone about such things. It's best to just keep them in the dark in case I change my mind. The law is generally stupid on these matters.
 
Henrin said:
Yeah, I know, and I don't care.
Click to expand...

Then why did you ask? I have that answer too, but am not allowed by forum rules to post it.
 
Lursa said:
Then why did you ask? I have that answer too, but am not allowed by forum rules to post it.
Click to expand...

Whenever I say "And??" it usually means I don't care. I was not looking for further information on the topic.
 
Henrin said:
Breach to promise to marry? WTF is that? How in the hell do they prove that anyway?
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
The $10,000 engagement ring he gave her?
Click to expand...

Henrin said:
And??
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
That is a socially and legally recognized promise of intent.
Click to expand...

Henrin said:
Yeah, I know, and I don't care.
Click to expand...


I dont remember reading this in the forum rules for signing up, but dont you need to be at least 14 to sign up? Preferably 18 but that doesnt seem possible.....

I didnt come here to babysit.
 
Henrin said:
Yeah, I'm aware of that. It's why I never say a damn thing to anyone about such things. It's best to just keep them in the dark in case I change my mind. The law is generally stupid on these matters.
Click to expand...

Oof, yeah, I run into clients like that, who refuse to put any commitments or statements of intent into writing because they're afraid of being held to their word, always sure to keep an exit door propped open. I immediately push them into my "difficult client and probably not trustworthy" basket.
 
Lursa said:
I dont remember reading this in the forum rules for signing up, but dont you need to be at least 14 to sign up? Preferably 18 but that doesnt seem possible.....

I didnt come here to babysit.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with you? I don't care for your arguments to support the idiocy that is the law. Get over it.
 
Henrin said:
Whenever I say "And??" it usually means I don't care. I was not looking for further information on the topic.
Click to expand...

Cool, whenever you ask me a question in the future and I dont answer, it means I see zero value in your post and it's not worth my time answering.
 
Cardinal said:
Oof, yeah, I run into clients like that, who refuse to put any commitments or statements of intent into writing because they're afraid of being held to their word, always sure to keep an exit door propped open. I immediately push them into my "difficult client and probably not trustworthy" basket.
Click to expand...

Well people DO change their minds. I don't really like the law coming down on me because I changed my mind. If there is no contract there is nothing to enforce. It's that simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom