I agree. I've changed my mind through this comment thread. Cheers!

You're going to feel really stupid when you read my further comments here.

Yes, I am wrong and have changed my mind. (Stating such in the comments below.) I'm really glad it worked out and he got his ring and away from the crazy lady.

Actually, it seems the law favors your stance, but is ambiguous state to state. That said, I've changed my mind, and she should have given the heirloom ring back without ransom. Full stop. It is the right thing to do.

After more thought and reading through the many comments here, I've come to the conclusion that I was wrong. This woman absolutely should have given the heirloom ring back without resorting to emotional and financial blackmail. Full stop.

Yep, seems I knew very little on the subject and have changed my mind.

Hey, this was fun. Glad to hear about your friend! We've definitely all made bad, horrible, terrible choices (I've certainly made my share many times over). If she were a decent person, she would have just handed that ring back - that's what I missed at the beginning.

Hmmm.... I'm googling and reading way more law sites about this than I would have expected on this Tuesday. LOL. Looks like the law in most places doesn't support my stance. I entered this dialogue with the understanding that my mind may be changed. I haven't completely come around to the notion that he is entitled to…

Yes, but she was fully prepared to meet the condition. He is the one who did not fulfill the "contract" here. I'm glad that he got his ring back and out of that engagement, but I'm still not clear where she is required to give the ring back. Conditional or not, HE didn't meet that condition when she, for all intents…

Hey, sorry I split this conversation into two, but I'll stop answering here as I've answered this and your other comment at the other end of this thread. I feel for your friend, I really do.

Did you read to the end of that section? Seems to me it supports MY assertion. However, conditional or not, she is not the one who broke the conditional contract, he is.

Do you have actual knowledge about this, or are you stating an opinion about the law? I don't have knowledge other than one anecdote about a friend in Georgia who was sued and lost after he broke off an engagement with a woman - the details of that case, however, elude me, and as we know, one anecdote does not a…

I'm not sure what case law you're looking at, but I don't think the facts support your assertion here.

If you're using a family heirloom as an engagement present, you had better be damn sure that you're giving it to someone who deserves it and you want to be with. The fact that it's an heirloom, however, does not change the nature of the dilemma. She didn't end the engagement, she keeps the ring. Full stop. I'd…

My Mom sold hers and went to France with me when she got divorced. (I paid my own way, however. No recompense for my emotional drainage - LOL.)

Yeah... but he broke the engagement, she really isn't obligated to give the ring back (no matter how awful she is). I totally feel for your friend though, but ultimately, the ring, and everything else, are just things. He's way better off, but I hope he didn't recycle the ring to his wife.

THIS would probably terrify them:

Ooo, I HATE getting that wrong - I shifted thoughts as I wrote that sentence... anyway... The US certainly has a problem, but to state that guns are "an American need" is to demonstrate a limited understanding of my country and the people here - even if you do live just up north. Canadians have plenty of guns, too,…

It's such an American need.

Well, you never did tell us how old your little girl is. But a child understands death fairly early, so don't wait too long. This kid is five.