shaybebaby:

The law didn't evolve to protect women, stop being paranoid.

It's to protect the coffers of the tax man. Because there are tax implications when "gifts" are involved.

If the law was not created specifically for the benefit of women, so why did the makers of the law exclude family heirlooms as the only rings that have to be returned?

Only1mi:
Legally the courts see an engagement ring as a conditional gift that should be returned in the event of a break up. I'd be more than happy to give it back, who wants the reminder of a failed relationship hanging about?

If the ring was worth £400,000 and the law says you don't have to give it back it is yours (an absolute gift), would you?

Remember: If the ring is worth that much, and your engagement just got cancelled, that means you are no more marrying a multimillionaire. Probably back to normal guys.

Would you still return it?

Escobar7:
Seeing people writing bout ladies choosing to keep an engagement rings makes me shudder. Except you dont know what being engaged is, why societal etiquette requires you as a lady to return the ring of a botched engagement, then your ignorance can be forgiven. It is only logical to give the ring back.

The more you take time to understand the average woman, the more you would shudder.

I have observed them for too long to drop my guard or be a "real man".

Sagamite:


Why should it be fine if she does not return it?

Did she buy it?

Is she fulfilling the intention it was bought for?

You are a feminist! Remember?

this has nothing to do with feminism firstly!! 2ndly it was a gift n its her decision to make!!! She didnt buy it but it was given to her!!!

Shugavee:
this has nothing to do with feminism firstly!! 2ndly it was a gift n its her decision to make!!! She didnt buy it but it was given to her!!!

How is it a gift?

What was the reason it was given to her for?

Tell me about any other "gift" you know of that is given for one singular intent.

Also tell me about any other "gift" you know of that can be given to you by only one kind of person.

It is about feminism. It shows the selfishness of feminism. Which is really not a shock considering the gender that is primarily advocating feminism.

NwaAmaikpe:



When an engagement is called off.

The engagement ring should be put along with the photograph of the heartbreaker inside a calabash and dropped on a T-junction so that the devil will judge the matter.

Craycray

Shugavee:
this has nothing to do with feminism firstly!! 2ndly it was a gift n its her decision to make!!! She didnt buy it but it was given to her!!!

Madam, why so much focus on the word gift'' ?

Gift can be something immaterial or intangible. In the context of this scenerio,the gift here is the "engagement/proposal. The "ring" is just a physical symbolism or essence of the true gift(the engagement). And the ring is preceded with an intent, and the intent of it is the engagement/proposal.

Instead of beating around in circles, why not return the essence of the gift(ring),when you truly don't want the gift(engagement) ? By the virtue standards of all things being equal, it is expected to be returned.

At least that is what a morally classy woman without greed would do.

Sagamite:


If the ring was worth £400,000 and the law says you don't have to give it back it is yours (an absolute gift), would you?

Remember: If the ring is worth that much, and your engagement just got cancelled, that means you are no more marrying a multimillionaire. Probably back to normal guys.

Would you still return it?

Haba, ask me a reasonable question naw. But truth be told, if it cost that much, I'd still return it. Anyone who knows me knows I don't like any hassle of any form.

Only1mi:


Haba, ask me a reasonable question naw. But truth be told, if it cost that much, I'd still return it. Anyone who knows me knows I don't like any hassle of any form.

AAAAAAHHHHHH!

Only1mi, true talk?

Say the truth and let the devil be ashamed pata pata.

You go return wetin?

Sagamite:


Explain too me how an engagement ring can be a gift.

Would you also be saying: "Did anyone beg her to leave her job and stay at home. If you know you don't want to be left destitute, then always go back to work and don't depend on a man. She was raising HER kids, and she wanted to. Kick her out with nothing after divorce".

Selfish a bit?

That’s different. In marriage there are laws because of shared property or assets. At a divorce, both are entitled to something that can equitably compensate for their contribution. Staying at home to raise kids within a marriage is not a bad thing. Before a woman can do that, the husband would be in agreement. Raising kids at home is a full time job. This is why we pay a lot of money for
Others to do it for us. Absolutely nothing wrong in a stay at home mother being compensated in a divorce. I don’t even support stay at home without something little going on. What if God forbid the husband dies and she has no source of income whatsoever?

Suaimhneas:
It should be returned. That's the right thing to do.


Legally (if taken to court), however, whether it's returned to the giver or kept by receiver depends on it being determined to be an unconditional or a conditional gift.

An engagement ring by definition is not a gift. It was given in anticipation of a specific event to occur in the future.

It given conditional, remember that before giving the ring you asked something along the lines of...’Baby will you marry me?’...you gave her the ring because she said YES, if her response was NO, she wouldn’t have gotten the ring...likewise, if along the line it become a NO, legally the ring should be returned.

Even if you didn’t ask her the above question, legally engagement rings are given conditional.

Ideally, the lady should return it, but if she does not the guy can forget it, but if the guy sued her, he will get the ring back or monetary compensation.

Shugavee:
this has nothing to do with feminism firstly!! 2ndly it was a gift n its her decision to make!!! She didnt buy it but it was given to her!!!

Engagement ring is not a gift....you agreed to marry the guy, hence he gave it to you. If you had said NO to his proposal, he would not have given you the ring, therefore once the prospect of marrying becomes a NO, it should be returned.

If the guy sues, he will get his ring or monetary compensation back.

baby124:

That’s different. In marriage there are laws because of shared property or assets. At a divorce, both are entitled to something that can equitably compensate for their contribution. Staying at home to raise kids within a marriage is not a bad thing. Before a woman can do that, the husband would be in agreement. Raising kids at home is a full time job. This is why we pay a lot of money for
Others to do it for us. Absolutely nothing wrong in a stay at home mother being compensated in a divorce. I don’t even support stay at home without something little going on. What if God forbid the husband dies and she has no source of income whatsoever?

Men, don't you just love the average woman's logical compass?

Logic 1: When it is to the disadvantage of women, and to the advantage of men = It is just plainly wrong

Logic 2: When it is to the disadvantage of men, and to the advantage of women = rationalise it

Here was another case of "rationalisation".

https://www.nairaland.com/4316979/marriage-finally-over/15#64651190



So it is the law is what makes it right?

You still did not explain to me how an engagement ring is a "gift".

Sagamite:


Men, don't you just love the average woman's logical compass?

Logic 1: When it is to the disadvantage of women, and to the advantage of men = It is just plainly wrong

Logic 2: When it is to the disadvantage of men, and to the advantage of women = rationalise it

Here was another case of "rationalisation".

https://www.nairaland.com/4316979/marriage-finally-over/15#64651190



So it is the law is what makes it right?

You still did not explain to me how an engagement ring is a "gift".

In a divorce, male or female can be compensated. Don’t make it a one sided thing to prove your point. About engagement ring being a gift, did he give it to her as a symbol of his love and commitment to her. Or did he lend it to her and tell her explicitly that the ring is only conditional on them being married?

Sagamite:


You are a cretinous fuuktard!

If you had any brain in your head, you would be able to comprehend the point of the thread.

But I guess peanuts are not brains.

If I waste your data, why don't you text one of your mugu guys to send you a top-up?

Please shut your trap and stop spewing smelly saliva all over the place.
You mentioned the point of the thread to an earlier question and I can read so all your baseless rants here are just that...baseless.

Peanuts are not brains, agreed. But neither is the cold space in your head dear sir.

Yeye dey smell!

Sagamite:


If the law was not created specifically for the benefit of women, so why did the makers of the law exclude family heirlooms as the only rings that have to be returned?

An engagement is a verbal contract between two people showing their intention to commit to each other.

As with any other contract, there are express and implied terms when entering into it. Implied contract is a little bit more ambiguous so the law generally looks at the conduct of the parties to determine if there are implicit terms.

The giver of the ring would have to demonstrate that he/she intended for all gifts to be returned in the event of a breakdown in relation or that it was gifted on the condition that the wedding must hold. So they are given the opportunity to demonstrate this fact by law. . If they do, they get their ring back.

Ofcourse with family heirlooms, it is easier to prove this as the gift which is handed down within the family is passed to someone who is believed to be about to join the family. It fits that purpose. Once the person is no longer family, they no longer meet that criteria.

Sagamite:


How is it a gift?

What was the reason it was given to her for?

Tell me about any other "gift" you know of that is given for one singular intent.

Also tell me about any other "gift" you know of that can be given to you by only one kind of person.

It is about feminism. It shows the selfishness of feminism. Which is really not a shock considering the gender that is primarily advocating feminism.

said my peace, am done with this topic, its was a gift to her, n she would give it back if she wants to!!! If u want the ring back ask politely , don't think she will forcefully give u! Cause it's hers!! Good day

baby124:

In a divorce, male or female can be compensated. Don’t make it a one sided thing to prove your point. About engagement ring being a gift, did he give it to her as a symbol of his love and commitment to her. Or did he lend it to her and tell her explicitly that the ring is only conditional on them being married?

shaybebaby:

An engagement is a verbal contract between two people showing their intention to commit to each other.

As with any other contract, there are express and implied terms when entering into it. Implied contract is a little bit more ambiguous so the law generally looks at the conduct of the parties to determine if there are implicit terms.

The giver of the ring would have to demonstrate that he/she intended for all gifts to be returned in the event of a breakdown in relation or that it was gifted on the condition that the wedding must hold. So they are given the opportunity to demonstrate this fact by law. . If they do, they get their ring back.

Ofcourse with family heirlooms, it is easier to prove this as the gift which is handed down within the family is passed to someone who is believed to be about to join the family. It fits that purpose. Once the person is no longer family, they no longer meet that criteria.

Shugavee:
said my peace, am done with this topic, its was a gift to her, n she would give it back if she wants to!!! If u want the ring back ask politely , don't think she will forcefully give u! Cause it's hers!! Good day

Standing ovation!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcuzB4wlebA&index=106

I love it!

This is why I opened the thread and called the feminists in to comment.

I just fcking love it!

The pure "me, me, me, me, me", "it is alright if it is going my way but an outrage if not".

baby124:

In a divorce, male or female can be compensated. Don’t make it a one sided thing to prove your point.

Don't you just love the average woman's logic and rationalisation when something is likely to be to their advantage.

As I stated earlier, this is what feminist push:

Sagamite:


Sorry, darling, there is no tax implications for engagement rings. EVEN if it is seen as absolute gifts.

The laws in the UK are created to favour women.

If a law is likely to, on most occassions, disadvantage women, it would be changed.

If a law is likely to, on most occassions, disadvantage men, nothing would happen even though everyone knows it is wrong.

That is UK for you.

I remember when I told you feminist peeps I was a social observer and could write you volumes; I wasn't kidding, girl.

https://www.nairaland.com/4316979/marriage-finally-over/16#64721687

Pure selfishness!

I bet if a government refuses to deal with domestical violence or a senior government leader vocalises support for it, you would not say it is not because of misogyny since both men and women suffer domestic violence?

baby124:

About engagement ring being a gift, did he give it to her as a symbol of his love and commitment to her. Or did he lend it to her and tell her explicitly that the ring is only conditional on them being married?

He gave it to her as a sign that we should get married.

It is a cultural gesture.

Pure and simple!

Easy logic!

Not rocket science!

No way you can argue otherwise with any warped feminine logic even if you tried from now till Jesu Kristi returns.

But feminine selfishness would find a way to rationalise otherwise. I would soon move to the "contract" rationalisation.

shaybebaby:

An engagement is a verbal contract between two people showing their intention to commit to each other.

As with any other contract, there are express and implied terms when entering into it. Implied contract is a little bit more ambiguous so the law generally looks at the conduct of the parties to determine if there are implicit terms.

The giver of the ring would have to demonstrate that he/she intended for all gifts to be returned in the event of a breakdown in relation or that it was gifted on the condition that the wedding must hold. So they are given the opportunity to demonstrate this fact by law. . If they do, they get their ring back.

Ofcourse with family heirlooms, it is easier to prove this as the gift which is handed down within the family is passed to someone who is believed to be about to join the family. It fits that purpose. Once the person is no longer family, they no longer meet that criteria.

What contract?

How is it a contract?

Do you understand the meaning of a contract?

Which court do you go to when engagement ends? National Indutrial Court? A commercial court?

Oh God! Women never cease to amaze me!

Escobar7, wetin I tell you?

You go shudder till you start generating electricity pass PHCN!

Shugavee:
said my peace, am done with this topic, its was a gift to her, n she would give it back if she wants to!!! If u want the ring back ask politely , don't think she will forcefully give u! Cause it's hers!! Good day

You can't explain how it is a gift?

You will just defiantly stick with your illogicality as long as you feel it is to your advantage and then froth with anger if others refuse to side with you if something is to your disadvantage?

And when people highlight your hypocrisy, you would scream they are just "sexist" or "misogynists"?

vivaciousvivi:


Please shut your trap and stop spewing smelly saliva all over the place.
You mentioned the point of the thread to an earlier question and I can read so all your baseless rants here are just that...baseless.

Peanuts are not brains, agreed. But neither is the cold space in your head dear sir.

Yeye dey smell!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCIyhUi2zBo

You are so daft, you even struggle to realise that I am calling your brain a peanut as a reflection of your cerebral power?

KAI! Moronic fuuktard to the core.

Sagamite:


AAAAAAHHHHHH!

Only1mi, true talk?

Say the truth and let the devil be ashamed pata pata.

You go return wetin?

Swear down

But everything you wrote here doesn’t have anything to do with rings. there are no (feminism-driven) laws that mandate people on what to do with engagement rings after the engagement is broken. It’s a personal thing. Some people may want to give it back while others may not want to regardless of their stance on feminism.

You anti-feminists often reach far and wide in search for shyt to toss at feminism. No matter how unrelated.

Well you tried to make the connection. In my opinion, it didn’t stick. Have a wonderful day

Sagamite:


Well, you got the point and mentality right.

The topic has something to do with feminism because:

a) It exposes the hyprocrisy of feminism, as those fighting for equality and disadvantages of a sex tend to only focus on the disadvantages to one sex only, hence cannot be about equality.

b) I am exposing how laws in certain countries with advanced feminism is actually discriminatory against one gender, and that is not the female gender.

c) I always like to highlight the inherent selfishness of women.

d) I am exposing how feminism has embedded an insidious and sub-conscious premise that women should only have rights, not responsibilities and even courts are following that mantra, hence embedding discrimination against men.

That is why you can see the feminist likes of aflyingbird saying:

"If he is the one that breaks of the engagement, then he should be punish. If she is the one that breaks off the engagement, she should not be allowed to punish him." To feminist like her, that is "equality".

That is not the first time or the only scenario where one hears such illogicality of "equality" from women. Another is when I have heard them say:

"If a man cheats in a marriage, the courts should award her half of his assets".

And when I ask them, what if it is the wife that cheated:

"Oh, then she should not get half".

What great deal. Who wouldn't want that.

Heads, I win; tails, well, I lose nothing.

That selfishness drives this philosophy that women should have all the rights but no responsilities and this should be the basis of legislation. Of course anyone without responsibilities can never be at fault, but those with rights can always be beneficiaries, otherwise they are "victims". Rights gives powers, responsibilities gives obligation. That is what has become the position of feminism and what I have been trying to highlight.

I am a very strong social observation that can see trends others can't see. My brain is live a 360 degrees night-vision-equipped, forensic goggles that panoramically sees what is going on while everyone else is in the dark and looking straight ahead. There are more threads I can create to highlight this. This is just one.

Sagamite:


Don't you just love the average woman's logic and rationalisation when something is likely to be to their advantage.

As I stated earlier, this is what feminist push:



Pure selfishness!

I bet if a government refuses to deal with domestical violence or a senior government leader vocalises support for it, you would not say it is not because of misogyny since both men and women suffer domestic violence?





He gave it to her as a sign that we should get married.

It is a cultural gesture.

Pure and simple!

Easy logic!

Not rocket science!

No way you can argue otherwise with any warped feminine logic even if you tried from now till Jesu Kristi returns.

But feminine selfishness would find a way to rationalise otherwise. I would soon move to the "contract" rationalisation.

Answer my question. Stop dancing around it now. You know my question hook you well.

nkemdi89:
Thank God no spiritual implication cos I still an engagement ring of over two years lying fallow on my window.

Hmm. Why didn't you give it back?

Sagamite:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCIyhUi2zBo

You are so daft, you even struggle to realise that I am calling your brain a peanut as a reflection of your cerebral power?

KAI! Moronic fuuktard to the core.

Clearly the word sarcasm is lost on a loser like you. No wonder the flossie dumped ur a.ss.
Lol.
Even wasted time uploading a video for a "moronic fuuktard" who won't be bothered to watch it.
Loser who is intimidated by so called feminists.
Shameless goat.
Be here arguing with a woman while your mates are out there being productive. Oh I forget, that's exactly what gives u the hots.
Moving on jare.....

lol @ Sagamite calling me a feminist.

idu1:





If you can know this guy. This is not your first moniker.

Hahahahhaha! Bad guy. It's true. We used to be on each others throats then.
I had to change cos I got tired of using it.
And no, I ain't telling you my old username.

Return it... Why keep it?

i love you

MissWrite:
I would return it.

Only1mi:


Swear down

Okay o.

I shall take your word for it.