In today’s column, I explore a longstanding and altogether highly controversial topic that recently became a state-level supreme court case, namely legally deciding who gets the engagement ring when a marriage is called off. The twist here is that perhaps we might ask modern-day generative AI to decide for us.
Yes, that’s right, the gradually becoming ubiquitous use of generative AI such as ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, Gemini, Llama, and other popular AI apps might as well be advising us about matters of the heart.
Let’s talk about it.
This analysis of an innovative proposition is part of my ongoing Forbes.com column coverage on the latest in AI including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here).
To Whom The Engagement Ring Belongs
I’d bet that you either know someone that got entangled in a dispute over ownership of an engagement ring or have seen plenty of plotlines in movies and TV that depict the rather dire and unsettling circumstance.
It goes like this. Two people decide they are in love and want to get married. An engagement ring is purchased, often at a hefty price, and the ring is given to the betrothed in some form of grandiose memorable ceremonial fashion. Birds are singing. The sky is blue. All is well.
Unfortunately, something happens prior to the actual marriage taking place. One or both parties opt to back out of the engagement. Sometimes this is done amicably, but more than likely it is quite acrimonious. Accusations fly. Fingers are pointed. It is an emotional mess.
We are now to the point in this tale of woe that is utterly engulfed in tremendous contention.
Who should get the engagement ring?
One viewpoint is that the person receiving the ring ought to keep it. It was given to them. It is their property. The person that gave the ring ought to have realized that they no longer retained any ownership in the artifact. Period, end of story.
Wait for a second, another perspective is that the ring should go back to the person that bought it. They forked over the hefty dough. They did so in anticipation of getting married. Since the expected marriage isn’t happening, they rightfully should get the ring back. Boom, drop the mic.
There is only one thing that seems clear cut. You really have just two choices in the difficult matter. Either give the ring back or let the ring remain with the party that has it. Of course, there are other options, though rarely considered. For example, sell the ring and split the money evenly between the two parties. Almost no one seems to like that option.
In the end, the final choice nearly always comes down to giving the ring back or keeping it.
The Law Speaks To The Hearty Issue
Like most disputes among people, it turns out the law has something to say about the bitter engagement ring dilemma.
In the United States, each state has laws on the books that generally layout the disposition of an engagement ring when its ownership is being disputed. Note that the states differ as to what the laws stipulate. By and large, each state has chosen a law that is typified as one of three kinds:
- (1) Unconditional (person possessing the ring keeps it; it is considered unconditional giving of the ring to the person).
- (2) Conditional (person holding the ring returns it to the buyer since the giving of the ring was considered conditioned on the marriage taking place).
- (3) Conditional – Fault-based (the final status of the ring depends on who is determined to be at fault).
The first two types are relatively straightforward. There isn’t much to debate. In that sense, the law makes the whole matter become rather perfunctory. You follow the law and if you don’t, you are breaking the law. To clarify, if the parties reach an amicable resolution, even if it doesn’t conform to the law, that’s fine and the law is principally for situations of an irreconcilable difference of opinion by the parties.
The third type is the doozy of a choice. Those that are disputing must each identify who is considered at fault for the engagement falling apart. Based on a fuzzy determination of fault, the ring will be awarded to the party seemingly not at fault or perhaps least at fault. The problem with this approach is that the acrid fault finding serves to further poking at an already stirring hornet’s nest. You can also rack up quite a hefty legal bill if the parties make a protracted attempt to win the engagement ring.
You might be tempted to assume that the parties in a fault-based venue would determine a sensible return-on-investment or ROI as to whether the legal battle is worthwhile. If the value of the ring is less than the cost to carry on the dispute, certainly it makes little rational sense to pursue the thorny matter. The thing is, often emotions run hot and despite the cost going through the roof, the parties become lodged in a mindset of winning the ring at any cost. Dizzying.
Broken hearts will do as they do.
Massachusetts Supreme Court Takes Up The Topic
The state laws on this topic are pretty much cast in stone. This makes sense. There is usually a longstanding historical precedence in each state. The particular state law just keeps doing its thing and rarely gets challenged as somehow wrongful or imprudent.
Aha, not always, as per the recent news headlines about Massachusetts. A court case has made its way to the top of the state-level court there, arriving at the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The judges have heard the case and proffered preliminary commentary during a lively legal debate on the pending case.
To give you a glimpse of what the case involves, let’s go ahead and ask ChatGPT to see if the engagement ring news has landed into the widely and widely popular ChatGPT.
- My entered prompt: “A court case has made its way to the Massachusetts Supreme Court about engagement rings. What is the case about? “
- ChatGPT generated response: “The case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court involves a dispute over a $70,000 Tiffany engagement ring. Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who were briefly engaged, are contesting who should keep the ring after their engagement ended. Massachusetts law traditionally considers engagement rings as conditional fault-based gifts, meaning they must be returned if the giver is not at fault for ending the engagement. Johnson claims Settino was at fault due to alleged infidelity, while Settino denies wrongdoing. The court’s decision could impact the state’s treatment of engagement rings in the future.”
Take a close look at the above response by ChatGPT.
First, always make sure to double-check any news-related response given by generative AI. I say this because there is a solid chance that the AI might falsely convey the news item. Facts might get distorted. The AI might encounter a so-called AI hallucination and generate a zany interpretation, see my analysis at the link here. And so on.
In this instance, fortunately, ChatGPT suitably stated what the case is about. A double-check by doing an Internet search is always wise. I did so and made sure the response was correctly stated.
It would be unusual to have an engagement ring dispute end up at a state supreme court. The basis here seems to be that this might open the door to having this particular state decide to dispense with a fault-based approach. Some fervently argue that states ought not to encourage fault fights, which is what tends to happen when the law stipulates a condition of determining who is at fault.
If a state goes the no-fault route, this reduces the wear-and-tear over fault related court time. The counterargument is that if fault isn’t included, such as a no-fault law, this means that one side is going to take things presumably on the chin. They won’t get their day in court, as it were, since the law stridently indicates what is supposed to happen.
The retort to that stance is that anyone in a state that gets engaged ought to be aware of the law and realize they are taking a risk either way, meaning they might be unable to keep or reclaim the ring when the marriage plans fizzle. Know your laws. Know especially your laws about engagement rings if you are getting engaged.
And have a lawyer on speed-dial.
What’s your opinion on this zesty topic?
Take your time, I’ll wait while you mull things over.
Diving Into Generative AI As Your Ring Dispute Advisor
Well, since we have already asked ChatGPT a question on this topic, we might as well see what else we can discern from the generative AI.
I came up with a question that seemed like an interesting mental puzzle.
Here we go.
- My entered prompt: “Suppose that one party lives in one state and the other party lives in a different state. Which state laws would prevail?”
- ChatGPT generated response: “When parties from different states call off an engagement, the question of which state’s laws would prevail in determining who keeps the engagement ring can become complex. The prevailing laws typically depend on several factors related to jurisdiction and conflict of laws principles. Here’s an example. Party A (giver of the ring) lives in New York, a conditional gift state, and wants the ring back. Party B (recipient of the ring) lives in Georgia, a fault-based state, and broke off the engagement. If Party A sues in New York, New York’s conditional gift laws would likely apply, and Party B might be required to return the ring regardless of fault. If Party B sues in Georgia, Georgia’s fault-based laws might apply, and the outcome would depend on who the court believes is at fault for the breakup. Jurisdiction matters: The state where the lawsuit is filed will often determine which state’s laws apply.”
You can see from the AI response generated that when the parties live in different states the engagement ring dispute goes into the stratosphere of legal complexity.
I doubt that the parties to an engagement overall consider the potential of an engagement ring possession quarrel when they are getting engaged. If the parties live in different states, they don’t tend to realize that the quarrel is going to be even more protracted.
That’s love for you.
Putting In Place An Engagement Ring Contract
The logical thing to do would be to clarify in writing upfront what is going to happen with the engagement ring if the marriage doesn’t occur. That is sensible. Discuss and disclose. Sure, that’s the ticket.
An obvious downside is that the act of putting together such an agreement might dampen the mood about the pending marriage. What, already we are arguing about the engagement ring, and does this foresee for a rocky marriage? Probably not the kind of erudite matter that the parties wish to get mired in. They are in joyful clouds and anticipating a blissful marriage.
Let’s ask ChatGPT about this.
- My entered prompt: “Some suggest that when giving an engagement ring, the parties ought to sign an agreement about what happens to the ring if the marriage gets called off. What do you think of this approach?”
- ChatGPT generated prompt: “Having the parties sign a legal statement indicating what the engagement ring disposition will be is an interesting approach with several pros and cons. Knowing that there’s an agreed-upon process for handling the ring in case of a breakup may help reduce the emotional stress of a difficult situation. Instead of arguing over who keeps the ring during an already tense time, both parties can refer to the agreement as a predetermined resolution. But engagement is often seen as a highly emotional and symbolic act and asking the recipient to sign a legal document in connection with receiving the ring may feel transactional or unromantic. It might even cause emotional tension early in the relationship, as it could imply a lack of trust or signal doubts about the future. Depending on the jurisdiction, certain agreements related to personal relationships may not always be upheld, particularly if they are seen as unfair or too one-sided.”
There you go, not only did generative AI point out the emotional considerations, but there is also the possibility that the agreement will end up in court anyway. You see, the lawyers are the winners here.
You, meanwhile, can’t win for trying, as they say.
Have Generative AI Make The Arduous Decision
Now that we’ve covered various facets of the weighty matter, let’s consider a final thought for the moment. Imagine this. Two parties have broken up and their marriage plans are kaput. An engagement ring is on the finger of one and the buyer of the ring wants it back. The possessor of the ring refuses. A dispute is at hand.
What to do?
Suppose they agree to let generative AI settle the issue. They decide to jointly log into generative AI and tell their dating and engagement story. After doing so, they ask the generative AI to decide who gets the ring.
They are on pins and needles.
Here we go.
- My entered prompt: “Suppose the two parties to a dispute about returning an engagement ring decided to log into generative AI and have generative AI decide who should have the ring. What do you think of that approach?”
- ChatGPT generated response: “Having generative AI decide the outcome of a dispute about an engagement ring raises important considerations. Neutrality: AI may offer an impartial decision without the emotional biases of the involved parties. Efficiency: AI could quickly analyze relevant legal principles, prior cases, and the specifics of the dispute to suggest a resolution. Legal Authority: AI’s decisions are not legally binding, and parties would still need to go through the legal system for enforcement. Nuanced Judgment: AI might not fully capture the emotional, ethical, or contextual nuances that a human judge would consider. This approach could provide insights or suggestions, but ultimately, legal systems, human judges, or mediators remain necessary for binding resolutions.”
Were you surprised by the answer?
You were likely assuming that generative AI would readily indicate which person should get the ring. I might add, there is certainly a chance that generative AI would do so. The AI might readily go along with the premise of the parties and spit out a decision. Nearly any of the major generative AI apps would potentially do so.
That being said, the generative AI apps are usually fine-tuned by the AI makers to include all manner of caveats. The chances are that the AI would provide a suggestion as a solution, but then have verbiage clarifying that the AI is not authoritative on the matter.
Engaging Use Of Generative AI
I’ve repeatedly noted that when it comes to the law, people are routinely trying to use generative AI to give them legal advice, which is highly risky, and the AI licensing usually proclaims you aren’t to do so (see my analysis at the link here). The AI makers know that generative AI of a generic nature is not able to properly dispense legal advice. For more on advancements and progress in the AI & Law realm, see my coverage at the link here and the link here, just to name a few.
Can two parties opt to use generative AI to settle an engagement ring dispute?
Sure, if that’s what they agree to do. In theory, they could agree to roll dice, play rock-paper-scissors, or proceed with whatever reasonable method or means they wish to use to make the hearty decision.
Generative AI falls into that same bailiwick.
I dare say that it seems nearly impossible to imagine that two disputing parties will readily and happily go along with a decision made by generative AI. That seems a real stretch. Even if the AI tries to soothe their emotions or seeks to explain the logical basis for the decision, the odds are that whichever party didn’t prevail will be unconditionally upset.
Someday, maybe we will all willingly decide to let generative AI settle all manner of quarrels and disputes. If the grand AGI or artificial general intelligence is reached, or better still ASI or artificial super intelligence, that might convince us to put our life decisions into the robotic hands of AI. Who knows, maybe AGI or ASI could be so silver tongued that the AI persuades the two disputing parties to get back together, get married, and they live a long and heavenly married life.
Sorry, there’s no AGI or ASI right now, so the engagement process is still pretty much rooted in the hearts and minds of humans. All the best in any pending engagements and I hope you never need to ask AI about any disputed engagement rings.
