What happens to the ring if the engagement is broken? To return or not to return? That is the question.
I think we should distinguish the act of giving an engagement ring, because how we perceive this act will be crucial in determining when the ring should, and should not, have to be returned if the wedding is off.
That is, if you were given a ring. Okay, so let's take the ring as "consideration" - a thing of value given in exchange to create a contract.
If we characterize the ring exchange as an option contract on the right to marry in the future suggests that the jilted bride should not have to give the ring back.
After all, the ring-giver got what he paid for - the option to marry a particular woman. He just chose not to exercise that option.
And she made good on her promise to marry by remaining open to the possibility (i.e. not running off and marrying Brad Pitt in the interim); she was not the one who broke off the engagement.
On the other hand, if the fiancée dumps the ring-giver, then on this theory, the jilted groom should get his ring back (or get damages, pursuant to the parties' contract). He never got to exercise his option, and she broke her promise to marry him.
What if we could consider the ring as symbolic of "title" to the bride - a legal right in her, as if she were property - being transferred from her father to her future husband. This is a sexist theory, I know.
But it has been known that a clump of earth and a twig was once used to symbolize the delivery of a parcel of land. Similarly, the giving of the ring could be seen as symbolic of the transfer of power and possession over a woman.
That theory, offensive though it is, would imply a ring need never be given back - and would, in that limited sense at least, ironically favor women's interests.
Transfers of symbolic tokens generally do not need to be returned, even if the underlying deal falls through.
But in the Philippines, we don't usually give rings when we intend to marry someone, we just promise to marry each other. Period. Or not marry at all.
And because of that we don't have any law governing engagement rings, and if we do receive an engagement ring, we have the tradition of considering engagement rings as gifts. If engagement rings are gifts though, should it be seen as an unconditional, or a conditional gift?
Because if it should be considered an unconditional gift, it means that even if the marriage does not take place, the gift stands - no matter who calls the marriage off.
The fiancée will only get his ring back if his fiancée breaks off the engagement and has procured the engagement and the ring through fraud, or deceit.
And if it will be considered a conditional gift it means that the gift of the ring "vests" with the would-be bride only when the condition - the marriage - occurs. Conversely, when the condition fails and the marriage doesn't happen, for whatever reason, the gift never "vests."
Under this situation, three possibilities of returning the ring occur: one, if there is no-fault on the side of both parties, the ring-giver is entitled the return of the ring-or its equivalent value-if the marriage never materializes.
No questions asked. But this might tempt men to involve in more intimate relationship-costless to women.
The result is that the would-be bride may be hurt, while her fiancée may become engaged carelessly, without a sufficiently thoughtful commitment.
Two, the fiancée is entitled the return of the ring, unless he is the one who called off the engagement-justifiably or not.
However, equating the decision to call off the wedding with "fault" is, at best, superficial. And at worst, it induces the parties into an endless game of chicken, where each, having lost interest in marriage, is compelled to behave worse and worse until the other party cannot stand it anymore and calls it quits.
The third possibility is a strict fault rule, under which the giver is entitled to return of the ring unless he was at fault for the broken engagement.
But in this scheme, a determination of fault requires a more careful study, which examines not only who called off the engagement, but also whether that person was justified in doing so. And who is to say when a broken engagement is justifiable?
We know that disappointment and hurt feelings often propel people into vengeful acts. To a jilted would-be bride, keeping the ring may be a small satisfaction, a settling of scores.
To a would-be groom who has been jilted, losing the ring, as well as the bride, may seem to add insult to injury.
Perhaps instead of worrying so much about who gets the ring when the engagement is off, we should stop playing into a tradition that evokes an image of men's ownership over women.
That is so not cool anymore. Because you see, there is another, more equitable option: if fiancée both exchange gifts upon engagement, rather than the man giving the woman a ring, or a car, house and lot, appliances or a cell phone, then everyone will have something to keep, and something to lose, if things do not work out.
For comments and reactions e-mail me at coi_416@hotmail.com.
