Diamonds are Almost Forever: The Marriage and Its Contract

by Jordan Yerman | May 9, 2007 at 05:40 am

1297 views | 0 Recommendations | 0 comments

The idea of marriage that we fall in love with (as it were) is that of the promise of everlasting love and fidelity, you an' me against the world, babe, as the song (by Space)says. In actaul fact, though, marriage is a socialpolitical tool, a contract that consolidates the holdings of two families, ostensibly raising both of their statuses within a community. However, things do not always quite work out. In this case, a judge has ruled the engagement ring as an element of the impending marraige contract, and not just a shiny, shiny gift. However, she keeps the condo.

In a case involving a broken engagement, B.C. Supreme Court Justice
Ian Pitfield ruled that when parties decide to go their separate ways
and the groom wants his ring back, he should get his ring back -- even
when it's a $49,000 sparkler from Birks.

According to documents
filed this week in court, Barry Zimmerman of Baltimore became engaged
to Evelyn Hannah Lazare of Vancouver in early 2005.

Zimmerman presented Lazare with a ring he had brought with him from Baltimore, but Lazare didn't like it.

So
after a holiday to Tofino, the couple went to Birks where Zimmerman
bought her a new ring for $49,020, inclusive of GST and PST.

Not long after, they bought a Vancouver condominium together at a cost of $810,993 to Zimmerman and $41,632 to Lazare.

They
also held a couple of engagement parties, one in Baltimore and one in
Vancouver, while Zimmerman continued to lavish expensive gifts on his
fiance, including a pearl necklace, a diamond bracelet, diamond
earrings and clothing, all of which "the parties considered necessary
and appropriate for Ms. Lazare to wear at the engagement parties."

But that's when things started to go wrong.

In
October 2005, when Zimmerman was visiting Lazare at the condominium
into which she'd moved, a "verbal altercation" resulted in an end to
the engagement and Zimmerman packing his bags for Maryland.

But
not before he asked for Lazare's engagement ring back. He didn't claim
recovery of any of the other gifts of jewelry he'd made to Lazare,
Pitfield wrote in his judgment, only the engagement ring. And "in my
opinion," concluded Pitfield, "the claim must succeed."

"The ring
was given as evidence of the mutual promises to marry," wrote the
judge. "The contract has been terminated. The parties should be
restored to their pre-contract positions.

"It follows that Ms. Lazare must return the engagement ring to Mr. Zimmerman."