Relationship breakdown - deposit for wedding

pphillips

unholyangel wrote: »

Would the father have gifted them that money had they not been getting married? If no then its pretty clear it wasn't unconditional and - like any gift a couple might receive upon getting engaged/marrying - should be returned if the wedding doesn't go ahead.

As for your earlier assertion the groom received no benefit since the wedding didn't take place, that is also incorrect. If he hadn't received that gift, he (together with the bride) would be out of pocket for the deposits themselves.

As I have said over and over, the father is not raising an action on the legal basis of breach of promise to marry - there was no agreement to marry between the father & son.

Section 1 merely states no special legal rights arise from the breach of promise to marry and so you cannot found an action based on that. Section 2 provides special rules (special as in they would not otherwise apply and disputes would be dealt with as any other dispute of that type with no consideration for type of relationship) for how property should be dealt with and divided up. Section 3 relates to gifts between the two parties and makes a special provision to get around the normal rule in law that someone should not benefit from their own wrong. Those sections provide special rights - they do not set out the only circumstances in which a claim may be based.

I can see where your coming from but I cannot see what the tangible benefit is.

If the father gave a gift of £4000 to the groom for use towards paying for the wedding and the wedding does not go ahead then I understand the father can claim back his money from the groom in restitution. However the problem here is that the groom never received a penny, the money was paid directly to a third party and the groom never acquired any real benefit from this payment which he could restore back to the father.

The same is true if there was a contract such as a loan agreement between the father and the groom, the contract was never completed as the father never paid any money to the groom. The father decided instead to enter into a different contract with the third party. The father cannot claim the money back from the groom because the groom never received any money.

chesky

Don't know why you're all bothering to argue, as the OP would seem far more interested in buying pet food than returning here.

unholyangel

pphillips wrote: »

I can see where your coming from but I cannot see what the tangible benefit is.

If the father gave a gift of £4000 to the groom for use towards paying for the wedding and the wedding does not go ahead then I understand the father can claim back his money from the groom in restitution. However the problem here is that the groom never received a penny, the money was paid directly to a third party and the groom never acquired any real benefit from this payment which he could restore back to the father.

The same is true if there was a contract such as a loan agreement between the father and the groom, the contract was never completed as the father never paid any money to the groom. The father decided instead to enter into a different contract with the third party. The father cannot claim the money back from the groom because the groom never received any money.

1) We don't know who entered the contract with the wedding suppliers
2) We know the father paid the deposits, but we don't know under what arrangements - whether he paid direct or whether he paid the couple who then paid the suppliers.
3) Even if the father didn't pay the couple directly, that does not mean they aren't receiving a benefit - just the benefit received is being discharged from a liability (to a third party - the suppliers) rather than the money itself.

DarkShadow

The OP can then claim all the money he spent on the girl - dresses worth 10k, shoes 2k, hand bags 3k.

pphillips

unholyangel wrote: »

Even if the father didn't pay the couple directly, that does not mean they aren't receiving a benefit - just the benefit received is being discharged from a liability (to a third party - the suppliers) rather than the money itself.

DarkShadow wrote: »

The OP can then claim all the money he spent on the girl - dresses worth 10k, shoes 2k, hand bags 3k.

Both these arguments are nonsensical.

unholyangel

pphillips wrote: »

Both these arguments are nonsensical.

Perhaps you'd like to tell the courts that? Given that was exactly what was ruled in Exall v Partridge? That discharging a liability for someone is a benefit.

https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/revision_notes/law-aspects-of-obligations/samples/1-dot-unjust-enrichment

Release of obligations –

 Paying for a discharge of an obligation is an enrichment

Bear in mind I'm not saying one way or another what a court would decide - just that we don't have enough information and based on that lack of information, yes he could potentially have a claim. The son shouldn't half !!! this - not unless he can afford to lose.

pphillips

unholyangel wrote: »

Perhaps you'd like to tell the courts that? Given that was exactly what was ruled in Exall v Partridge? That discharging a liability for someone is a benefit.

https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/revision_notes/law-aspects-of-obligations/samples/1-dot-unjust-enrichment



Bear in mind I'm not saying one way or another what a court would decide - just that we don't have enough information and based on that lack of information, yes he could potentially have a claim. The son shouldn't half !!! this - not unless he can afford to lose.

I never said that Exall v Partridge was wrongly decided, but that case has no relevance here.

unholyangel

pphillips wrote: »

I never said that Exall v Partridge was wrongly decided, but that case has no relevance here.

How does it have no relevance when you're saying paying a debt to a third party is not a benefit when the ruling in that case was that it is a benefit (despite the fact that exall never received any money personally from partridge)?

Would you care to provide anything at all backing up your viewpoint that it is not a benefit?

Or care to explain why the above judgement seemed sound enough for the supreme court in menelaou v bank of cyprus to say there was no doubt that the defendant had been enriched by being discharged from a debt?

Sorry but when it comes to the judgement of the supreme court versus the judgement of a random on the internet, I'm always going to go with the supreme courts.

pphillips

unholyangel wrote: »

How does it have no relevance when you're saying paying a debt to a third party is not a benefit when the ruling in that case was that it is a benefit (despite the fact that exall never received any money personally from partridge)?

Would you care to provide anything at all backing up your viewpoint that it is not a benefit?

Or care to explain why the above judgement seemed sound enough for the supreme court in menelaou v bank of cyprus to say there was no doubt that the defendant had been enriched by being discharged from a debt?

Sorry but when it comes to the judgement of the supreme court versus the judgement of a random on the internet, I'm always going to go with the supreme courts.

You can quote case law at me till the cows come home but you seem to have forgotten that a legal precedent will not apply when the facts in one case are materially different to those in another.

pphillips

I think this post should be closed now as I no longer feel comfortable with the tone of the debate.