Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Cohen v Sellar engagement ring case

    Caricato da

    Tasnova Shafi
    237 visualizzazioni2 pagine
    1. The case involved a dispute over an engagement ring given by the defendant to the plaintiff with the understanding they would marry. They ended the engagement and the defendant refused to marry the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages in the High Court. The defendant then brought a counterclaim in the County Court seeking return of the engagement ring. The County Court case was transferred to the High Court. 3. The judge ruled the ratio decidendi was that if one party refuses to marry without legal justification, they cannot demand return of an engagement gift, like a ring. The gift becomes the absolute property of the recipient if the marriage takes place.

    Descrizione originale:

    Cohen VS Steller

    Titolo originale

    Exercise 3 Analyse the Judgement of McCardie J in Cohen v Sellar

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    DOCX, PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    1. The case involved a dispute over an engagement ring given by the defendant to the plaintiff with the understanding they would marry. They ended the engagement and the defendant refused to marry the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages in the High Court. The defendant then brought a counterclaim in the County Court seeking return of the engagement ring. The County Court case was transferred to the High Court. 3. The judge ruled the ratio decidendi was that if one party refuses to marry without legal justification, they cannot demand return of an engagement gift, like a ring. The gift becomes the absolute property of the recipient if the marriage takes place.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato DOCX, PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    237 visualizzazioni2 pagine

    Cohen v Sellar engagement ring case

    Caricato da

    Tasnova Shafi
    1. The case involved a dispute over an engagement ring given by the defendant to the plaintiff with the understanding they would marry. They ended the engagement and the defendant refused to marry the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages in the High Court. The defendant then brought a counterclaim in the County Court seeking return of the engagement ring. The County Court case was transferred to the High Court. 3. The judge ruled the ratio decidendi was that if one party refuses to marry without legal justification, they cannot demand return of an engagement gift, like a ring. The gift becomes the absolute property of the recipient if the marriage takes place.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato DOCX, PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 2

    Exercise3AnalysethejudgementofMcCardieJinCohenvSellar[1926]1KB536at546givingthe

    followinginformation.
    1.Abriefstatementofthematerialfacts
    2.Theproceduralhistoryandissuestobedecided
    3.Thepassage(s)inthejudgement:
    (a)Whichcouldbearguedtoberatiodecidendi;or
    (b)Whichcouldbearguedtobeobiterdicta.
    1)Plaintifffemale,defendantmale.Agreementbetweenthetwotomarry.Engagementringboughtforthe
    plaintiff by the defendant, with no express condition. Given and received as an engagement ring in
    contemplation of marriage. Differences arose between the plaintiff and the defendant Reconciliation
    attempted,butnonewasachievedDefendantandplaintiffpartedcompany,attherefusaltomarryfromthe
    defendantPlaintiffsueddefendantfordamagesandsucceededActionboughtbydefendantforrecoveryof
    theengagementring.
    2)PlaintiffsueddefendantfordamageswhichendedinHighCourtDefendantboughtactiontorecoverthe
    engagementringinCountyCourtCountyCourtdecidedtoawaitdecisionfromHighCourtactionCounty
    CourtactionwasremovedtotheHighCourtandwasmadeasacounterclaimPlaintiffawardeddamages
    Decisiontobemadewaswhogetsthering?
    3)Obiterdictaunderlined,ratiosdecidendiinbold.
    ThisIholdtobethecorrectlegalview.Ifawomanwhohasreceivedaringrefusestofulfultheconditions
    ofthegiftshemustreturnit.So,ontheotherhand,Ithinkthatifthemashas,withoutarecognizedlegal
    justification,refusedtocarryouthispromiseofmarriage,hecannotdemandthereturnofthering.Bythe
    slowgrowthofdecisionthepromiseofmarriageistodayfixedwithmanyofthelegalcharacteristicsofa
    commercialbargain.Itisgovernedlargelybytheprinciplesoflawapplicabletoordinarycontracts.The
    conditionswhichattachedtoagiftmadeincontemplationofmarriagemustbeviewedinrelationtothe
    incidentswhichflowfromtheengagementitself.Reliancecannotbeplacedonaselfinducedfrustration.
    Thelikerulewill,Ithink,applytoamatrimonialadventurealso.
    AlikeresulttothatIhavealreadystatedwillfollowifanengagementringberegardedasapledgeor
    depositforthefulfilmentofacontract.Apersonwhowronglyrefusestocarryoutabargainwillosehis
    deposit.Iftheengagementtomarrybedissolvedbymutualconsent,thenintheabsenceofagreementto
    thecontrary,theengagementringmust,Ithink,bereturnedbyeachpartytotheother.Thisseemsclearon
    principle.Ifthemarriagedoesnottakeplaceeitherthroughthedeathof,orthroughadisabilityrecognized
    bylawonthepartof,thepersongivingtheringorotherconditionalgift,thenItaketheviewthatinsuch
    casetheconditionistobeimpliedthatthegiftshallbereturned.Foralthough,asIhavesaid,suchagift
    cannotbedissociatedfromtheengagementtomarry,yetIthinkthatinthecircumstancesofbethrothalgifts
    thereshouldbenoapplicationoftheoperationofsuchdecisionsasKrellvHenry[1903]2KB740and
    ChandlervWebster[1904]1KB493.Ifthemarriageactuallytakesplacethentheengagementringorlike
    giftwill,intheabsenceofexpressagreementtothecontrary,become,Iinfer,theabsolutepropertyofthe
    recipient,andthatpropertwillnot,Ipresume,bedivestedbysubsequentdivorce.ThejudgementIhave
    givendoesnot,ofcourse,touchgiftswhich,asinLockyervSimpsonMosely298,areabsoluteandfree
    fromcondition.Ittouchedconditionalgiftsonly.Butthematterwasnotlefttothemfordecisionandtheir
    viewwasonlyasuggestion.Theywerenotcognizantofthepointsinvolvedinthedisputeastothering.In
    anyeventitwouldhavebeenrightthattheplaintiffshouldkeeppossessionoftheringsothatshemightbe
    abletotakeitinexecutionforthedamagesandcostsawardedinherfavouragainstthedefendant.
    B)Adistinguishedcaseisusedwheretheearliercaseinnotnecessarilydoubted,butwheresomeessential
    difference(eitheronthefactsorinthelaw)betweenitandtheannotatedcaseispointedout.1Thecase
    distiguishedwasJacobsvDavis[1917]2KB532.Theessentialdifferenceisthatinthiscasethelady
    brokeofftheengagement.C)McCardieJthoughtthattheconclusionshereachedwereborneoutbythe

    generalbodyofopinion.TheapparentdictumtothecontraryinOldenburghsCaseFreemansKB213;2
    Mod140,cannotbereliedonatthepresentday.TheJacobsvDaviscasewasawaytojustifyhisdecision
    inwhichhestated:Thecasewasreasonablyclearintheinferencethatifthemanhadbrokenoffthe
    promisehecouldnotgetbackthering..He,therefore,wouldhavenoissueswithhavingcouncelarguefor
    thedefendant(inthecounterclaim)withsomeplausibilitythatthecaseshouldbegovernedbythiscase,so
    astojustifyhisopinion.D)TheratiosofthecasesJacobsvDavisandCohenvSellarapplytoanycaseof
    apersongivinganotherpersonanengagementgift.Thetwocaseswere,atthetime,onlyconcernedwith
    mengivingengagementringstowomen,becauseinthejudgesexperience,thatstheonlywayithappened
    Inthislight,shewouldbesuccessfulinsuingforitsreturnusingbothofthesecasesasprecedent.The
    consequencestotheratioofCohenvSellararethatitmustbeseeninagenderneutrallight,asawomen
    givingamananengagementgift,isapossibilitywhichwouldprobablybeinajudgeoftodaysexperience.

    If a woman who has received a ring refuses to fulful


    the conditions of the gift she must return it.
    Iftheengagement tomarrybedissolvedbymutual consent,thenintheabsenceofagreement tothe
    contrary,theengagementringmust,Ithink,bereturnedbyeachpartytotheother.Thisseemsclearon
    principle.Ifthemarriagedoesnottakeplaceeitherthroughthedeathof,orthroughadisabilityrecognized
    bylawonthepartof,thepersongivingtheringorotherconditionalgift,thenItaketheviewthatinsuch
    casetheconditionistobeimpliedthatthegiftshallbereturned.Foralthough,asIhavesaid,suchagift
    cannotbedissociatedfromtheengagementtomarry,yetIthinkthatinthecircumstancesofbethrothalgifts
    thereshouldbenoapplicationoftheoperationofsuchdecisionsasKrellvHenry[1903]2KB740and
    ChandlervWebster[1904]1KB493.Ifthemarriageactuallytakesplacethentheengagementringorlike
    giftwill,intheabsenceofexpressagreementtothecontrary,become,Iinfer,theabsolutepropertyofthe
    recipient,andthatpropertwillnot,Ipresume,bedivestedbysubsequentdivorce.ThejudgementIhave
    givendoesnot,ofcourse,touchgiftswhich,asinLockyervSimpsonMosely298,areabsoluteandfree
    fromcondition.Ittouchedconditionalgiftsonly.Butthematterwasnotlefttothemfordecisionandtheir
    viewwasonlyasuggestion.Theywerenotcognizantofthepointsinvolvedinthedisputeastothering.In
    anyeventitwouldhavebeenrightthattheplaintiffshouldkeeppossessionoftheringsothatshemightbe
    abletotakeitinexecutionforthedamagesandcostsawardedinherfavouragainstthedefendant.
    Iftheengagement tomarrybedissolvedbymutual consent,thenintheabsenceofagreement tothe
    contrary,theengagementringmust,Ithink,bereturnedbyeachpartytotheother.Thisseemsclearon
    principle.Ifthemarriagedoesnottakeplaceeitherthroughthedeathof,orthroughadisabilityrecognized
    bylawonthepartof,thepersongivingtheringorotherconditionalgift,thenItaketheviewthatinsuch
    casetheconditionistobeimpliedthatthegiftshallbereturned.Foralthough,asIhavesaid,suchagift
    cannotbedissociatedfromtheengagementtomarry,yetIthinkthatinthecircumstancesofbethrothalgifts
    thereshouldbenoapplicationoftheoperationofsuchdecisionsasKrellvHenry[1903]2KB740and
    ChandlervWebster[1904]1KB493.Ifthemarriageactuallytakesplacethentheengagementringorlike
    giftwill,intheabsenceofexpressagreementtothecontrary,become,Iinfer,theabsolutepropertyofthe
    recipient,andthatpropertwillnot,Ipresume,bedivestedbysubsequentdivorce.

    Potrebbero piacerti anche