|
Does anyone think that this is a good deal for a diamond engagement ring? (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
This is a little muddled. A contract requires both parties to provide consideration, so if something of "quantifiable value" were required then both parties would have to supply it, not just one.If one side tendered consideration but the other did not, it would be a gift, not a contract. But, in any event, a promise is (usually) consideration. Thus, an exchange of promises with no ring would fulfill the consideration requirement just fine, assuming there wasn't something defective about one or both of the promises (a promise to pay a debt won't cut it, for example, since you already have a legal obligation to do that.) |
Ah but there is consideration both ways, as the promise to marry carries with it the promise to provide what used to be referred to as "wifely services." Remember; this whole idea of an engagement ring is a cultural hang over from the Roman betrothal rings, which were the consideration in a contract to marry that essentially made it the man's duty to financially support his wife and the wife's duty to provide sex and children. These things didn't have any symbolic meaning of love until the ninth century (Pope Nicholas made it a requirement for marriage as a symbol of the man's ability to care for his wife). |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Ah but there is consideration both ways, as the promise to marry carries with it the promise to provide what used to be referred to as "wifely services." |
Well, I do think there is consideration both ways (I still think there would be without the ring, however).
The problem with that is that a promise of "wifely services" wouldn't cut it today since that's not going to be something modern courts deem legally enforceable (I'm not even sure ye olde courts would deem it legally enforceable... although since at that point I don't think many (any?) jurisdictions recognized the concept of rape within marriage, it's probably a moot point.) And a promise of wifely services is pretty redundant historically, too, since at that point it's basically just an exchange of property with the woman being part of the property. |
|
|
| Slylee |
| omg stop you guys are making me hot |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well, I do think there is consideration both ways (I still think there would be without the ring, however). |
I agree with you, but as I said, it's a cultural hang over.
| quote: | | The problem with that is that a promise of "wifely services" wouldn't cut it today since that's not going to be something modern courts deem legally enforceable |
There's actually a split on this. The UK courts view engagement rings as absolute gifts, Oz courts view them as conditional gifts (akin to consideration), and the US is split based on state.
| quote: | | (I'm not even sure ye olde courts would deem it legally enforceable... |
Ah but it was, as evidenced by the fact that failure to provide same were legal grounds for divorce in the UK up until the mid 1800s.
| quote: | | although since at that point I don't think many (any?) jurisdictions recognized the concept of rape within marriage, it's probably a moot point.) |
The first to do so (that I'm aware of) was the UK; in the late 1800s; however, it was highly case specific. Some men were convicted while others were still being aquitted of marital rape until the early 1990s. |
|
|
| ZeJayMan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Love should be unconditional and if you're putting conditions on your wallet it demonstrates that your finances take precedent to the one you love. Granted it doesnt mean be an idiot but it means invest in her. Make her happy. Do the little things and also show her the big things that tell her she is the one. If that means an hour long massage, buying her jewlery that you can budget for and afford (not 1 cent candies from the corner store). Knowing the little things that she likes, paying attention doing them for her once in a while. If you can paint let her sit naked, or with clothes, and take a couple of hours and draw her portrait. Tell her how beautiful she is. Comprimise for her once in a while. Take time to listen to what she wants. Go down on her, when your finished go again until she's satisfied and treat her like she is the world to you.
To those that disagree i think wallmart has a special on cubic zirconia's lol |
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| Scottaculous |
How much to pay for a ring is relative to the amount of money you spend on other things you love. For example, I paid 3k for the world's most comfortable sectional, 2500 for Virus TI keyboard, and 2k+ for a LCD TV. Therefore I can not in good conscience spend 2k or even 3k on a ring for the woman who is to be my wife. The upper limit is, of course, what I can afford but the lower limit should be well above my toys.
And for those who are criticizing Kevin for spending 20k for his ring, allow me to let you in on the truth. You're poor. Not everyone on TA is a poor college student or young professional. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
I'd much rather have a fat pair of diamond stud earrings. I don't like to wear rings, for one. Two, we're not really supposed to wear rings and in my line of work anyway...so what's the point of having some big rock on my hand if I'm hardly ever wearing it.
As long as I've thought about marriage I've only ever wanted a simple band. I can do without the engagement ring. Traditional jewelry doesn't really turn me on. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Traditional jewelry doesn't really turn me on. |
how about now? |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
Lol, a little X TREME...and not really what I meant. But yeah, sure. :p
I meant that I like artsy fartsy pieces...handcrafted stuff by local artisans type . |
|
|
| Danny Ocean |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
The point is that anyone who pays that much for a ring is an idiot, even if they're the richest man in the world. |
......rich people spend 20k on less valuable things than an engagement ring, a luxury five day vacation probably. And the wives probably have 100k+ engagement rings.
At least his bitch will have that ring until she dies or they get a divorce and she gives it back. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| ha, give it back? pawn that |
|
|
| Scottaculous |
diamonds and gold retain their value. it's not like you're throwing your money away in a depreciating object.
mta: like a car. |
|
|
|
|
