Rodger admitted that it was he
alone who called off his engagement to marry Janis, but he still wanted the
return of the expensive engagement ring he had given her. When Janis refused,
Rodger sued to get the ring back, and he won.
It was settled law in the state
that any engagement gift, including a ring, is a conditional gift that must
be returned if the condition is not fulfilled. Janis argued that her acceptance
of Rodger's marriage proposal was the satisfied condition. The court ruled instead
that the condition that must occur for the gift to hold up is the marriage itself.
Janis also argued that, even if
the condition for the gift had not been met, a giver should have no right to
a return of the gift when the giver breaks off the engagement. The court conceded
that this has some superficial appeal to our sense of justice where one person
truly has wronged the other. Of course, the rule would be unfair when the giver
had compelling reasons to call off the engagement.
The court's greater concern, however,
was that the ending of most modern relationships is rarely so cut and dried.
Ascertaining who was at fault would invite the parties to stage the most bitter
and unpleasant accusations against those whom they nearly made their spouse.
The process would also amount to opening a Pandora's box: Is a breakup justified
by having nothing in common; dislike of prospective in‑laws; a hostile
minor child; incompatible pets; irritating habits; religious differences, etc.?
Rather than requiring courts to
undertake the thorny task of finding fault, the court borrowed from the approach
used in a no‑fault divorce, some form of which exists in all 50 states.
If, as in the case of Rodger and Janis, the marriage is called off, the giver
of the engagement ring is entitled to its return, with no investigation into
the motives or reasons for the breakup.
