Text Message Cost Man $53,000

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
This is a perfect example of what NOT to say in a text message when you are breaking off an engagement. What an idiot.

Louis J. Billittier Jr. dumped his fiancee with a terse text message, breaking off their engagement. Apparently trying to calm down the situation, he then sent a fateful text: “Plus you get a $50,000 parting ring. Enough for a down payment on a house.” Each of those 90 characters ended up having a price tag of roughly $600.
Click to expand...
 
something tells me if he can afford a 50,000 engagement ring... the ACTUAL ring would have been even more. Meaning this man has money falling out his ass, or he's in debt up to his eyes.

Either way he got off cheap relative to what he would waste in the next decades of marriage, and got off REALLY cheap if the marriage failed anytime soon and she got 1/2.

50K though -- that's 1/2 of what I owe on my house, for an engagement ring? God damn I'm either poor or people are fucking stupid what they spend on metal and carbon to "prove" their love.
 
Just an aside, the engagement ring is the "actual" ring. The wedding band is usually substantially cheaper. ;)
 
^ He's right, the engagement ring is usually the one with the big rock on it.
 
Wow, back in my day it was trade a couple goats to her Dad and she was mine. No ring needed.

Times are a changin'. Those were my best goats, too.....
 
Ur_Mom said:
Wow, back in my day it was trade a couple goats to her Dad and she was mine. No ring needed.

Times are a changin'. Those were my best goats, too.....
Click to expand...

Actually, even farther back, people realized men needed to be enticed to be married, so the wive's family paid the MAN thousands of livestock. Ah, the good ol' days of dowries... ;):D
 
TwistedAegis said:
Actually, even farther back, people realized men needed to be enticed to be married, so the wive's family paid the MAN thousands of livestock. Ah, the good ol' days of dowries... ;):D
Click to expand...

So you get to keep the whale AND the livestock that comes with it
 
If I can't lease more than one wife I don't even want one wife. Rather be single.
Last thing, my X-GF of 4 years is a c**t , that's all, not bitter about it, she's just a c**t .



Like her Mother
 
Using the three month salary rule for engagement ring, the guy probably makes 18k per month or 212k per year.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Actually, even farther back, people realized men needed to be enticed to be married, so the wive's family paid the MAN thousands of livestock. Ah, the good ol' days of dowries... ;):D
Click to expand...

This is pretty much why the bride's family traditionally pays for the wedding today.
 
Aluisious said:
What kind of dirtbag dumps a fiance by text?
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly! Seems like he got what he deserved if you ask me. If you care so little for your fiance as to not discuss the reason you want to end the relationship/engagement in person you deserve to not get the ring back plus a swift kick in the balls for being a douche as well. :D
 
While that ring may have cost him $50K, the sad reality is that it has virtually no real street value, and he'd be lucky to get $100 for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU

In any case, good on him to cut his losses before the wedding. Imagine what the divorce settlement two years later would have cost him. And before you guys say, don't worry just get a prenup. Its been proven that prenups mean JACK SQUAT if the marriage lasts more than very briefly, and a lawyer will still take you for all you're worth and half your life savings are *poof* up in smoke.

You don't have to buy a cow to enjoy fresh milk on your cereal every morning...
 
I don't think he bought it with the thought of selling it....................
 
markkin said:
Using the three month salary rule for engagement ring, the guy probably makes 18k per month or 212k per year.
Click to expand...

The rule of thumb (not ring finger, pun intended) imposed by the diamond cartels was previously two months salary. Never said if it was gross or net pay, but I generally presumed gross.

As far as I could tell, the change to three months occurred right around the time of the Great Recession (which as far as I'm concerned is still ongoing regardless of the repeatedly massaged government statistics). Then again when so many people were unemployed whether it's two months of $0 monthly or three months of $0 monthly, it's still a $0 ring.

The other general principle is that whoever breaks off the engagement does not get to keep the ring. So if you want the ring back for your next relationship, convince your fiance to end things. For those [H] members in law school, this has previously been a bar exam in at least one state and I saw a similar question in a friend's BarBri study book.
 
Teenyman45 said:
The rule of thumb (not ring finger, pun intended) imposed by the diamond cartels was previously two months salary. Never said if it was gross or net pay, but I generally presumed gross.

As far as I could tell, the change to three months occurred right around the time of the Great Recession (which as far as I'm concerned is still ongoing regardless of the repeatedly massaged government statistics). Then again when so many people were unemployed whether it's two months of $0 monthly or three months of $0 monthly, it's still a $0 ring.

The other general principle is that whoever breaks off the engagement does not get to keep the ring. So if you want the ring back for your next relationship, convince your fiance to end things. For those [H] members in law school, this has previously been a bar exam in at least one state and I saw a similar question in a friend's BarBri study book.
Click to expand...

Sounds like here he would have gotten the ring back here had he not told her that she gets a $50,000 parting ring, enough for a down payment on a house.

That is what fucked him over. That was enough to become a legally binding contract to allow her to keep the ring. So the real thing to take away from this is even if you do break it off, don't tell the woman that she can keep the ring.

I myself don't exactly understand how sending her that message was supposed to make thing better. There is a HUGE part of this story missing as to the why all this happen.
 
markkin said:
Using the three month salary rule for engagement ring, the guy probably makes 18k per month or 212k per year.
Click to expand...

My wife's ring cost $25, mine was $30, the ceremony as it was, cost about $150 including gas for my car, alcohol, and the license. We used our pooled resources to buy a house. Neither of us feel that we're missing out by not having a house down payment on her hand.

Just can't wrap my head around the thought of spending a quarter of my annual salary on a rock.
 
Jeremy C said:
My wife's ring cost $25, mine was $30, the ceremony as it was, cost about $150 including gas for my car, alcohol, and the license. We used our pooled resources to buy a house. Neither of us feel that we're missing out by not having a house down payment on her hand.

Just can't wrap my head around the thought of spending a quarter of my annual salary on a rock.
Click to expand...

Engagement ring =/= wedding band. Unless you didn't buy her an engagement ring you are missing a ring there.

But yeah, it does seem crazy.
 
Jeremy C said:
My wife's ring cost $25, mine was $30, the ceremony as it was, cost about $150 including gas for my car, alcohol, and the license. We used our pooled resources to buy a house. Neither of us feel that we're missing out by not having a house down payment on her hand.

Just can't wrap my head around the thought of spending a quarter of my annual salary on a rock.
Click to expand...

Most people are stupid.

I'd refuse to marry any woman who would prefer a tiny rock on her finger to a house.
 
markkin said:
Using the three month salary rule for engagement ring, the guy probably makes 18k per month or 212k per year.
Click to expand...

Is it three month salary? Lol if so I don't think I could ever be convinced to spend really good car money on a ring. Probably the most I could ever be "convinced" to spend it 15k and that's stretching it hard.
 
Teenyman45 said:
The rule of thumb (not ring finger, pun intended) imposed by the diamond cartels was previously two months salary. Never said if it was gross or net pay, but I generally presumed gross.

As far as I could tell, the change to three months occurred right around the time of the Great Recession (which as far as I'm concerned is still ongoing regardless of the repeatedly massaged government statistics). Then again when so many people were unemployed whether it's two months of $0 monthly or three months of $0 monthly, it's still a $0 ring.

The other general principle is that whoever breaks off the engagement does not get to keep the ring. So if you want the ring back for your next relationship, convince your fiance to end things. For those [H] members in law school, this has previously been a bar exam in at least one state and I saw a similar question in a friend's BarBri study book.
Click to expand...

Some states the donor will get it back no matter who breaks it off. It really depends on the state and judge. There are conditional gift states, implied conditional gift states and unconditional gift states. But it's pretty much guaranteed to be a gift in any state if it's given on any holiday.
 
What's most troubling here is that apparently text messages apparently are considered iron clad contracts, no take backs.... hmmm more should use that if a girl says they want you for sex via text "Got it, it's a legally binding contract give up up honey!"
 
That's traditionally how engagement rings worked:

"Tradition generally holds that if the betrothal fails because the man himself breaks off the engagement, the woman is not obliged to return the ring. This reflects the ring's role as a form of compensation for the woman's damaged reputation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring
 
sfsuphysics said:
What's most troubling here is that apparently text messages apparently are considered iron clad contracts, no take backs.... hmmm more should use that if a girl says they want you for sex via text "Got it, it's a legally binding contract give up up honey!"
Click to expand...

I will start by saying that I am not a lawyer, but am saying this based on my understanding of the law in regards to stuff like this. Depending on the circumstance yes. That is no different than a written contract. If I text you and say that I will do work for you at $X amount for the job, you text back saying that is fine and we setup everything for the job. I do the work and you don't pay me. I can use the text messages as proof that we had an agreement for me to do work for you at a certain rate. The judge would accept the text message as proof of a contract. Same here, he is offering her payment (the ring) for a task (them ending their relationship). If you had proof of a verbal contract that would hold up the same, but that issue there is that normally you don't have proof of a verbal contract so they are harder to prove and is why you are told to have a written contract. That can be email, text or paper.


MrAgmoore said:
That's traditionally how engagement rings worked:

"Tradition generally holds that if the betrothal fails because the man himself breaks off the engagement, the woman is not obliged to return the ring. This reflects the ring's role as a form of compensation for the woman's damaged reputation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring
Click to expand...

Again that depends on the state. Some do go by that rule, others don't. Also depends on the reason I would assume. If the woman cheats on the man, tries to kill him.... I would assume that would be considered valid reasons for him to end the relationship and still get the ring back.
 
There's an actual law in NY that allows men to get back the ring?

Does this exist in CA?
 
Xrave said:
There's an actual law in NY that allows men to get back the ring?

Does this exist in CA?
Click to expand...

Yup, actually think it is like that in most states. (not a lawyer so don't know for sure, but I think that is how it is). As stated before if the giver of the ring calls of the wedding and the person that received the ring is not at fault, then they get to keep the ring. If they are at fault and the cause of the wedding being called off then they have to return the ring.
 
Exavior said:
I will start by saying that I am not a lawyer, but am saying this based on my understanding of the law in regards to stuff like this. Depending on the circumstance yes. That is no different than a written contract. If I text you and say that I will do work for you at $X amount for the job, you text back saying that is fine and we setup everything for the job. I do the work and you don't pay me. I can use the text messages as proof that we had an agreement for me to do work for you at a certain rate. The judge would accept the text message as proof of a contract. Same here, he is offering her payment (the ring) for a task (them ending their relationship). If you had proof of a verbal contract that would hold up the same, but that issue there is that normally you don't have proof of a verbal contract so they are harder to prove and is why you are told to have a written contract. That can be email, text or paper.
Click to expand...

Wow that's crazy. We some snap-chat style SMS. Either that, or do everything verbally like the good ol days
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top