Discussion
Resources
11
General Board / Albinger v Harris
« on: August 09, 2005, 12:38:12 AM »
Has anyone read this case?
I've been looking at it, though I find the Majory opinion to be correct, their reasoning is completely irrelevant.
The Issue should be whether the giving of an engagement ring can be considered a contractual obiligation and if so whether that existed in this case.
The "conditional gift theory" cant be valid in that the Black Letter Law cleary states that a gift is "a transfer of personal property made voluntarily and without consideration" This is an oxymoron if i ever saw one i'm sure the court realizes that but i cant understand why they give credence to it.
Albinger cleary did not place a contractual meaning with the transfer of the property because he told her "to take the car, horse dog and ring and get out" during their last break up. If he had transfered some sort of contractual meaning to the ring why did he not ask for it back. Was he still under the impression that they would get married. I think not.
This is a simple case that could have been decided on the fact that he did not consider the ring to involve some sort of contractual obligation because he never considered it as such.
There was no reason for the court to attempt to discern a conditional gift theory. I havent even gotten to the gender bias part of the majority decision yet but that doesnt seem relevant whats so ever.
I've been looking at it, though I find the Majory opinion to be correct, their reasoning is completely irrelevant.
The Issue should be whether the giving of an engagement ring can be considered a contractual obiligation and if so whether that existed in this case.
The "conditional gift theory" cant be valid in that the Black Letter Law cleary states that a gift is "a transfer of personal property made voluntarily and without consideration" This is an oxymoron if i ever saw one i'm sure the court realizes that but i cant understand why they give credence to it.
Albinger cleary did not place a contractual meaning with the transfer of the property because he told her "to take the car, horse dog and ring and get out" during their last break up. If he had transfered some sort of contractual meaning to the ring why did he not ask for it back. Was he still under the impression that they would get married. I think not.
This is a simple case that could have been decided on the fact that he did not consider the ring to involve some sort of contractual obligation because he never considered it as such.
There was no reason for the court to attempt to discern a conditional gift theory. I havent even gotten to the gender bias part of the majority decision yet but that doesnt seem relevant whats so ever.