Almost everyone is in pursuit of that ‘happily-ever-after’ moment. To find the one person to spend the rest of your life with. To experience a love story that could put all of those fairy tales to shame – the whole nine yards. But the reality isn’t quite as idyllic or easy.

One Australian woman accepted this cold, hard truth a couple of days ago. However, instead of ranting about her ex-fiancé on Facebook, she opted to sell her engagement ring on the popular social media platform instead.

The woman listed an ad for her Tiffany & Co. engagement ring. ‘Selling this for obvious reasons. I do, now I don’t.’ She wrote. ‘Compare to current Tiffany pricing of a 1.0 carat ring at $23,600, I am letting go of this beauty at $18,500.’ Then, she posted a picture of the engagement ring in question.

1.0-carat Tiffany & Co. engagement ring in question, listed for $18,500. Credit: Daily Mail​

She posted the advertisement on Facebook, in a group that specialises in buying-and-selling luxury items. ‘Condition is close to brand new – never worn much.’ She reassured the buyers in the post. The woman also added that Tiffany & Co. has a lifetime warranty, so the buyer can have the ring re-adjusted or cleaned for free.

‘Sorry no receipt as I didn’t buy it obviously. Bank transfers only.’ She added one last time. Online shoppers were sceptical of the listing because of the $5,000 markdown price. ‘So no GIA certificate on the diamond, just a Tiffany grading?’ One person commented. The GIA refers to the Gemological Institute of America, a non-profit that authenticates the quality of diamonds.

While some users warned the woman to be wary of bank transfers. Citing that people can either send fake receipts or reverse the payment. However, the main point made in many of the comments was the question of whether the woman was allowed to sell the ring at all…

Some people claimed that the woman cannot legally sell her engagement ring. Credit: Daily Mail​

Many Facebook users questioned whether the woman can sell her engagement ring, citing various legal implications that come with the posting. Some commented that if her ex-fiancé bought the ring, and the woman broke off the engagement herself, so the ring legally belongs to her ex-fiancé.

Someone also supported this statement, saying ‘If he paid for it, it’s his and he should get all the $$$.’ Another user claimed: ‘If the marriage doesn’t go ahead, the ring generally belongs to/goes back to the person who proposed.’

However, others were quick to come to the woman’s defence. ‘Not true!’ One person commented, ‘It’s considered a gift and it’s hers!’ Another woman wrote, ‘Good for you for keeping it. It’s absolutely beautiful.’ Another user supported the woman, saying that if she was proposed to then the ring legally belongs to her.

As the heated discussion continued, many on-lookers slammed other commenters for assuming the circumstances of the poster’s relationship, and the breakup. ‘OMG why do people feel the need to comment on this?’ One user commented. ‘If you don’t want to buy it,’ they continued, ‘why bother adding your two cents?’

‘Tries to sell a ring, everyone turns into a lawyer,’ another person half-heartedly jokes. ‘Comes here to sell a ring, get legal advice instead,’ a second user commented.

According to the law firm Bateman Battersby, the following needs to be considered in a traditional engagement:

1. If a woman, who has received a ring in contemplation of marriage, refuses to fulfil the conditions of the gift, she must return the ring.
2. If a man refuses to carry out his promise of marriage, without legal justification, he cannot demand the return of the ring.
3. It is irrelevant whether the denial of the promise turns out to benefit both parties.
4. If the engagement is ended by mutual consent, then in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the engagement ring and similar gifts must be returned by each party to the other.
5. It may be possible for a woman to raise ‘legal justification’ for refusal to carry out her promise of marriage if there is ‘repudiatory’ conduct on the man’s part, such as violence or an affair, in which case it may be possible for her to keep the ring.

Breaking off an engagement is already a painful situation to be put in. Adding a legal complication to the mix is nothing short of a disaster waiting to happen. What about you, dear readers, what would you do in the woman’s situation? Would you keep the ring or give it back? Or, like this woman, would you sell it? Let us know in the comments below!

 

[mylittletibbies]

How can anyone believe that she should get to keep or sell the ring if she was the one breaking off the engagement.
Unclassy money grabbers telling her she has a right to keep it. Wonder if they would feel the same if this was happening to their brother or family member. Bet they'd be the first to kick up a stink!!

 

[sharkfin1]

The ring should be returned I had 2 wives and both screwed around but I only got 1 ring back from the second wife but my first wife said it was stolen funny thing is she gave it to our son for his marriage 20 years later I don't mind that but all the lies that came out of her mouth about the ring I had it made but she told him it was handed down through the family

 

[mOiOz]

An engagement ring is given by one partner (assuming he has paid for it) to the other as a commitment or acceptance to marry in return.
Regardless of who breaks the engagement... BY LAW, it must be returned to the giver...!!!

 

[Ricci]

Never mind the rights and wrongs of selling an engagement ring if I was in the market for a piece of jewellery for several thousand dollars I don't think Facebook marketplace would be my go to. That there is no Valuation, Certificate of Authentication or even the original purchase documents or receipt would be another red flag. How do we know it's not a scam, she says bank transfer only, what's to ensure she would even mail the ring, always supposing it actually exists.

 

[Pommyoz]

I was divorced because of violence, but still have this sweet ring. Engraved 1906 from previous owner, now it really is an antique, I could sell, because it's so small now for my pinky!

 

[mOiOz]

I was divorced because of violence, but still have this sweet ring. Engraved 1906 from previous owner, now it really is an antique, I could sell, because it's so small now for my pinky!

It is legal to keep after marriage but, not before. Good for you... I did the same.

 

[MotherGoose]

There's no way I'd buy a secondhand ring for that much money without any certification. There's only her word for it that it is worth that much. It's very foolish to buy anything on Facebook. As for whether or not she should keep it, what is legal and what is morally right are not always the same thing and it does rather depend upon the circumstances of the breakup of the relationship. I suspect this lady is a user.

On a humorous note, when I broke off my engagement, I gave back absolutely everything, including all the engagement gifts, even though I was not at fault (he was a serial cheater). His mother (who I got along really well with) insisted I should keep all the cookware she gave me but I refused. She then commented, "I don't know why you wanted to marry my son anyway. He's just like his father!"

 

[Jennifer]

my son had a broken engagement,the bride to be kept the ring all the engagement presents some from my family that were very expensive also lots of things I kept buying through the time they were together to help them set up house, my son was shattered as was I. never again will I be so silly. a hard lesson to learn.

 

[Thecheesequeen]

An engagement ring is a pledge. Once the pledge is broken, the ring is returned to the giver. The statement from the legal firm puts it succinctly.

 

[mylittletibbies]

I was divorced because of violence, but still have this sweet ring. Engraved 1906 from previous owner, now it really is an antique, I could sell, because it's so small now for my pinky!

I think it's perfectly fine to keep the ring if you were actually married, after all you have kept up your end of the engagement deal.
I kept the ring from my first marriage only because the stones were from my mother's ring but I left the ring behind when I left my 2nd marriage, didn't want the reminder.
Funny story though, he gave the ring to his daughter who went to hock it and despite him telling me that he paid $10,000 for it, it turned out to be silver and zirconias!!!
Lies even before the marriage started, I wouldn't have cared really, it was a really pretty ring, just the person who gave it didn't turn out to be do "pretty".

 

[MotherGoose]

A couple of posts have alluded to "the law" but the law varies from state to state. In Australia, the following usually applies, according to Slater and Gordon's website, a very well-known legal firm, and based on a particular court case.

"The Court likened the promise of marriage to a commercial bargain, governed largely by the law of contracts. In other words, the act of giving an engagement ring could be seen as nothing more than a transaction where the ring symbolises a deposit for fulfilment of a contract.

The Court then summarised the principles that apply to engagement rings, as follows:

1. If a woman who has received a ring in contemplation of marriage refuses to fulfil the conditions of the gift, she must return the ring;
2. If a man refuses to carry out his promise of marriage, without legal justification, he cannot demand the return of the ring;
3. It is irrelevant whether the denial of the promise turns out to benefit both parties;
4. If the engagement is ended by mutual consent, then in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the engagement ring and similar gifts must be returned by each party to the other.

The Court also commented that a woman could raise a plea of ‘legal justification’ for her refusal to carry out her promise of marriage if it was shown that there was ‘repudiatory’ conduct on the man’s part, such as violence or an affair. In those circumstances, it would be possible for the woman to keep the ring.

It seems then that a decision as to who keeps the ring may turn on who breaks off the engagement and the reasons why he or she did so."

 

[Narvainy]

I have never heard of a special article in the law for an engagement ring. However, as far as I know, when giving a gift to a person more than a certain amount, he is obliged to draw up a gift document. Otherwise, the item will be considered the property of the person who bought it. Accordingly, in this situation, the ring still belongs to her ex-fiance. Although I also don't understand such hype around the ring. This is the case of a girl, her ex-fiance, and a future buyer. I like to wear rings but buy them at the store as https://www.aurorapromise.com/, for example. Wearing things after someone is considered a bad omen.