ABSTRACT
The question of what jurisprudential model should govern the question of who should be awarded an engagement ring following a failed engagement has vexed courts, wasted judicial resources, resulted in a morass of inconsistent and jurisdictionally varying results, and left parties uncertain and litigious for decades. The question has social, feminist, historical, and economic implications. Following the passage of Heartbalm statutes eliminating causes of action based on broken promises to marry, courts and legislatures have struggled with whether the engagement ring is unique, deserving of its own treatment. This story is intricately woven with the incredible marketing success of the De Beers corporation in structuring how couples worldwide view the connection between love, marriage and diamond engagement rings. Past frameworks have tried to fit their analyses within existing contract law doctrines, which either require a fault analysis that is not compatible with the myriad issues of failed relationships or a no-fault analysis which is jurisprudentially unmoored. Our modest proposal for reform suggests instead that courts apply a simpler determination that will shift the terrain of the court’s analysis of the intricacies of human relationships from fault to good faith. We suggest that courts confine their inquiry to whether the ring was given by the donor and received by the beneficiary in good faith at the moment of the exchange. We suggest that the giving of the ring be reframed to be a joint prayer, a hope for a successful relationship leading to marriage in an uncertain world.
Price, Bruce M and Ali, Anoosh, Broken Circles: Contract Law’s Flawed and Inconsistent Treatment of the Return of Engagement Rings Following a Pre-Marriage Breakup and a Modest Proposal for Reform (July 27, 2026).
Leave a Reply