Cohen v Sellar - Detailed case brief, including paragraph/page references Property law: chattels PDF

Preview

Summary

Detailed case brief, including paragraph/page references
Property law: chattels ...

Description

Cohen v Sellar Area of law concerned:

Gift given in contemplation of marriage- engagement ring

Court:

King’s Bench Division

Judge:

McCardie J

Date

1926

Counsel: Summary of Facts:

Defendant gave the plaintiff an engagement ring, but the marriage was called off by the defendant. They’re fighting over the ring.

Relief sought: Issues:

Relevant Statute(s): Procedural History: Plaintiff/Appellant’s arguments Defendant/Respondent’s arguments: Result: Judge’s reasoning:

The plaintiff contends that inasmuch as the ring was given solely in contemplation of marriage it was an implied condition that if the marriage, through whatever cause, did not take place, the ring should be handed back to the defendant. He submitted that it was immaterial that it was the defendant who called off the wedding. Plaintiff’s argument 313-314 orange

Jacobs v Davis: “When an engagement ring is given by a man to a woman there is an implied condition that the ring shall be returned if the engagement is broken off. 317 green

It seems reasonably clear that the case held that if the plaintiff himself had broken off the promise, he could not have back the ring. 317 orange

Lockyer v Simpson: it was conceded by the AG in that case that if the lady had refused to marry the man she would have to return the gifts delivered to her in contemplation of marriage. 317 brown

This I hold to be the correct legal view. If a lady who has received a ring refuses to fulfil the conditions of the gift she must return it. So, on the other hand, I think that if the man has, without a recognised legal justification, refused to carry out his promise of marriage he cannot demand the return of the engagement ring. 317 brown

It matters not in law that the repudiation of the promise may turn out to the ultimate advantage of both parties. (eg a happier life lol.) a judge must apply the existing law on the limits of justification for breach.

317 red

Orbiter If the engagement to marry be dissolved by mutual consent, then in the absence of agreement to the contrary the engagement ring and like gifts must, I think, be returned by each party to the other. 317-318 blue

If the marriage does not take place either through the death of or through a disability recognised by law on the part of the person giving the ring or other conditional gift, then I take the view that in such a case the condition is to be implied that the gift shall be returned. 318 orange

If the marriage takes place then the engagement ring or gift shall, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, become, I infer, the absolute property of the recipient, and that property will not, I presume, be diverted by subsequent divorce. Interesting ex-ante implications in today’s divorce-happy world 318 green

The judgment I have given does not touch gifts which are absolute and free from conditions. It only touches conditional gifts. Red 318

Judgment for the plaintiff lady

What can be learned from this case....