lol bruh, u can't be serious
Dude ordered to pay $50,000 for breaking engagement.
- Thread starter skeetsinternal
- Start date
lol bruh, u can't be serious
A lot of ya'll really need to look into contract law and learn to place more value on your word. The case is not about her being mad that he left her. They had a contract. She would stay with him, not work and raise the kids. In exchange he would marry her. The ring was a testament to that agreement. She fulfilled her end and he did not. That is why he has to pay.
dude said they never had an in depth convo about this. the in exchange part and the terms of the "contract" are made up at this point.
He was lying! That is why he lost.
kermit da hustla
Banned
work in IT, brehs.
if that's what the decision was based on...it's kinda weak. Is it so unbelievable that they never had a clear agreement that she would quit her job and in exchange they get married? I mean it's in the judge's hands i guess but it's kinda weak and will probably get shut down at the next court level or whatever. I'm actually curious to know what will happen now and what type of legal precedent it will set. as i posted earlier:
She changed her whole life after he bought her that ring. I am sure circumstance had a lot to do with it too. He begged her to stay, bought her a 10K ring, she moved in with him, they had a baby, she quit her job and they never talked about a future once? He never said anything to her during all that? C'mon now.
just because they dated long term doesn't mean They have to get married
Every single decision they made and how they lived was in the form of a marriage. The engagement also proves that the decisions were being made on the expectations of marriage from both parties.
He fukked up, Not her.
Were they suppose to put their decisions on hold (which affect kid's lives) until they finalized wedding details.
They were engaged breh
Y
But I would've never trusted her in the first place and get a mail order bride
eah that's like unlegal marriage, she didn't get half his shyt but they can still be together by a ring
But I would've never trusted her in the first place and get a mail order bride
morally i'm leaning more towards her side, don't get me wrong (although her decisions weren't very wise...). but legally i think the judge messed up on that one. even if we go by your reasoning, shouldn't the judge have told the guy "either marry her (since that's what was agreed originally) or pay up" (and yes this would be absurd IMO as well but not as absurd as what actually happened).
engaged for 10 years...that girl will forever be a victim...
so what's the point of signing documents then? lets just exchange rings and save money. seems like the law sees it that way now anyway.
Every single decision they made and how they lived was in the form of a marriage. The engagement also proves that the decisions were being made on the expectations of marriage from both parties.
He fukked up, Not her.
Were they suppose to put their decisions on hold (which affect kid's lives) until they finalized wedding details.
The cost is in the rings, Signing the contract is cheap.
I think the problem in this is that they both agreed that she would forego her earning potential while raising the kids, which in turn would make his earning potential increase.
If this never happened....I don't she would have received any type of payout