How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Ash Your Own Question
Ash
Ash, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 10916
Experience:  Solicitor with 5+ years experience
75100385
Type Your Law Question Here...
Ash is online now

A case involving a broken engagement and the courts implying

Resolved Question:

A case involving a broken engagement and the courts implying a condition for a ring to be returned because it is a family heirloom or valuable. The condition can be implied under the law reform (miscellaneous provisions) act 1970 but I can't find any cases about implied conditions. Are there any please? I need specific cases and information regarding implied conditions to return the ring.
Submitted: 2 years ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Ash replied 2 years ago.
Alex Watts : Hello my name is ***** ***** I will help you With this.
Alex Watts : For now please let me know the value of the ring?
Customer:

Alex, I didn't know the value of the ring mattered. It is a hyperthetical question. If the value does matter then let me know please. I re-itterate that the main thing I need is a case or two to quote with regard to this subject. Thanks Karen.

Alex Watts :

Ok let me look into this

Customer:

Hi Alex. If it helps the ring is worth £20,000. Karen

Alex Watts :

Hello Karen, I have researched this.

Alex Watts :

The case you need is:


JACOBS v. DAVIS. [1917 J. 1382.]
Alex Watts :

The header is: When an engagement ring is given by a man to a woman, there is an implied condition that the ring shall be returned if the engagement is broken off.

Alex Watts :

Jacobs v Davis [1917] 2 KB 532, 86 LJKB 1497

Alex Watts :

Can I clarify anything for you about this today please?

Alex Watts :

This is supported by:

Alex Watts :

Cohen v Sellar - [1926] All ER Rep 312

Alex Watts :

Alfred Maragh v ***** ***** And Edith Williams; Rachael Williams v Leonard Maragh - (1970) 16 WIR 322

Alex Watts :

Does that help?

Alex Watts :

If this answers your question could I invite you rate my answer before you leave today.


If the system won’t let you please click reply.



Please bookmark my profile if you wish for future help: http://www.justanswer.co.uk/law/expert-alexwatts/

Ash and other Law Specialists are ready to help you

Related Law Questions