engaygement ring

[burnoutsax]

I finished with me bird can i gt my engaygemnt ring back?

[MrHouston]

Wow what a way to spell engagement lol

Ask her for it?

[JC-Furio]

Unless she uses sax-p, this is the most pointless thread ever.

[burnoutsax]

shes on zeetecS club

[Curran]

another classic thread from burntoutsax

[Barry123]

hahahahahahahahah

[Sammy-Boy]

Ask for it back or text her :D

[Cal]

Send her this link and hope she responds

[Mattt-VTR]

Lmfao, hmmm no comment.

[Sammy-Boy]

What a thread to start up eh?!

[djrem]

I love you. Take my ring. x

[-Jason-]

Ring toe ;)

[Crunkers]

What kind of a stupid question is this??

Right, my mates jumped off a cliff, should i follow?

[JC-Furio]

What kind of a stupid question is this??

Right, my mates jumped off a cliff, should i follow?

Without any doubt, how could you ever question such an obvious situation...

Neg rep.

[Crunkers]

Without any doubt, how could you ever question such an obvious situation...

Neg rep.

Ah thanks, I thought it was obvious but I thought it was a trick question

[Ashleyp]

this thread is a fail...

[kenny]

this thread is a fail...


epic fail tbh

[OLLYVTS]

Im not surpized you have split up,you got engaged within about 2 weeks?

[vidal]

And the answer is ....

One of the claims made in Cox v Jones was for the return of the engagement ring by Miss Cox. The law states that if, at the time of giving, there was an express or implied condition that a gift, such as an engagement ring, should 'be returned if me parties do not marry, the donor can recover their property. It makes no difference whether it was the donor or donee who terminated the engagement (Kaur v Bunwaree [1998]). Under s3(2) LRMPA 1970, there is a presumption that the gift of an engagement ring is an absolute gift. However, this presumption may be rebutted by proving that the ring was given on the express or implied condition that it was to be returned if the marriage did not take place for any reason.

In Cox v Jones, Mr Jones acquired a large stone, worth in excess of £10,000, and had it set in a ring for Miss Cox. He gave it to Miss Cox in February 1998. Mr Jones' case was that the ring was given on the understanding that it would be returned if the relationship ended (based on a conversation that he said took place between the parties in Hong Kongbefore the ring was purchased). Miss Cox denied that understanding, and claimed to be entitled to keep the ring. The judge agreed with her.

In his judgment, Mann J said:

I... consider that on the evidence, Mr Jones has not established the conversation or conversations that he relies on in establishing the necessary condition created by the 1970 Act. When coupled with my views of Mr Jones as a reliable witness of fact, his case is even weaker.

The conversations relied on did not happen... I therefore find that the claim to the ring fails.


NO. It was given as a gift.

V.

[Peejous]

Where's my fucking picture for V?

brb

[Peejous]

Found it:
http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w110/Da_Peej/Vidal.jpg