Return of the Ring

So I have been reading a lot of the master - "Plum" Wodehouse, for the nth time. One thing which recurs in his books is some chump like Bertie getting engaged and wanting to break it off, but scared to do so, fearing an action for " breach", till Jeeves comes along with scarfing down phosphorous filled fish and saves the day.

But I was intrigued by what this "breach" was all about - I mean, I understand it is for breaching the engagement but it sounds quite funny - like breaching a contract. So I did some search on this and ascertained that my guess was indeed correct. The lady would sue the man because her chances of getting engaged/married had gone down significantly after the guy broke off the engagement.

But I came across a more interesting legal question - "If an engagement is called off, who gets to keep the ring?". There are three popular directions taken by judges - oh yes- such cases have been tried in the Supreme Court.

1) The ring is a gift and if the receiver can prove the donors intent of gifting it, the actual giving it and the receivers accepting it, then the receiver is entitled to keep it.

2) The ring is a conditional gift hinging on the marriage and doesn’t get transferred to the receiver till the marriage is completed - that is, the contract for which the ring is a token is completed.

3) It was bought by the donor and hence belongs to the donor.

Anyway, isn’t it interesting that the Supreme Court has to arbitrate in matters, which seem silly to me? Who was that who said. "The law is an ass"?. For a complete article on this issue look up the link on “Who gets to keep the ring?”.