Business Law 16th Edition by Jane Mallor,James Barnes ,Arlen Langvardt,Jamie Darin Prenkert,Martin McCrory

تمرين 9

Charles Miller and Nicolette Chiaia met each other through work in 2007 and began a relationship. In October 2008 Miller moved into Chiaia's home where she lived with her minor children from a prior marriage. Miller had also been married and was recently divorced. The parties' living arrangement was predicated on a mutual belief that they would become engaged and would marry. In early November 2008, the parties took a trip to Italy during which Miller proposed and presented Chiaia with a ring. She accepted the proposal and the ring. Subsequently she asked Miller where he had purchased the ring, was disappointed with the answer and gave it back to him. When they got back from Italy, Miller took the ring back to the seller and received a full refund of the amount he had paid, $5,000. Chiaia suggested the style of a different ring she would like and Miller purchased one like it from a jeweler for $12,000. Miller then "reproposed" and presented Chiaia with the second ring.
Over the next few months, Miller, who was selfemployed, had business difficulties which caused friction between the parties and the relationship soured. In February 2009, Miller moved out of Chiaia's house and the parties never reconciled. Miller asked for the ring back but Chiaia refused. Miller then brought a lawsuit, seeking replevin of the ring. Chiaia contended that there had been a completed gift and that she owned the ring. Miller claimed that it was a conditional gift given at the time of the engagement and in contemplation of marriage. Is Miller entitled to recover the ring from Chiaia?