Barbara Ellington, Lifestyle Editor
McGregor
Tomorrow, August 8, marks the first anniversary of Flair's very popular legal advice column, 'Laws of Eve'.
The name came about simply because women are all regarded as 'daughters of the biblical Eve' and like Eve, are subject to mistakes whether there is temptation or lack of guidance. We saw a need, therefore, to provide women (in particular), with the kind of legal advice that affects their lives and the lives of their children.
In discussions with our writer, Sherry-Ann McGregor, it was learned that she shared similar sentiments and one year later, she continues to make the column interesting and informative. We thank you for reading and will continue to provide you with useful legal advice.
Flair spoke with Ms. McGregor about her experience with the column.
Since you began the column 'Laws of Eve' what have you found to be most rewarding about it?
The most rewarding aspect of Laws of Eve has come from hearing readers say that they learnt something that they never knew before, or that they have been better able to understand something, which they thought they knew.
On a professional level, I have felt pride in the fact that parliamentarians, members of the judiciary and my colleagues at the Bar have indicated that they also derive some benefit from my articles.
What sort of feedback have you had from readers?
The feedback from readers has been overwhelmingly positive, despite initial perceptions that my objective was to equip women with ammunition to attack men. I am especially pleased that there seems to be many male readers who recognise that they also have a responsibility to protect the rights of women and children.
What have some of the most read topics dealt with?
I have found that any topic about marriage and divorce has generated wide-spread interest. In fact, I have been interviewed on various radio talk shows in response to the series of
articles on the new Property (Rights of Spouses) and Maintenance Acts. But, based on the number of times I have received comments on 'Who owns the engagement ring?', I think that must stand out as the most read article of all.
Has anything surprised you about Jamaicans' knowledge
of the law and their rights?
I have been pleasantly surprised by Jamaicans' thirst for knowledge of the law, but I am concerned about the fact that information is not easily accessible.
So, would you then conclude that the column is achieving its objective
of helping women learn more about aspects of Jamaican law that affect them and their children?
Judging from the response to the articles, I think that the objective is generally being met, but it is clear that there is need for more to be done. It is hoped that people don't believe that any article will answer all of their questions, but consult attorneys to get detailed advice about their specific concerns.
What aspects of the law do you think need to be repealed/amended
or even rewritten to make life easier for women and children?
All aspects of The Offences against the Person Act are urgently in need of review, especially the definition of many offences (they need to be gender neutral), the age of consent and the penalty for some crimes. Outdated laws regarding women and the workforce need to be repealed. The paltry fines and penalties which many crimes attract, e.g., prostitution, make a mockery of the fact that they are laws.
Having been a lawyer for some time now, are there any changes you would like to see or anything that you would change if you had the power?
If I had the power, I would create a modern and efficient court system - one which does not justify a complaint that justice comes too late or at too high a price. I would like to fast-track the effort to reform the justice system.
How have your life and career been affected by the Laws of Eve series?
My life and career have both changed for the better. One year after writing my first article, I still eagerly await the weekly publication, and check to ensure that it is accurate, but I now do so with less trepidation than on August 8, 2005. The breadth of my knowledge of the law and my areas of practice have expanded. I continue to improve my ability to communicate in a language which is clear and capable of being understood by non-lawyers.
Sherry-Ann McGregor is a partner and mediator in the law firm of Nunes, Scholefield, DeLeon &Co. Send feedback to:lawsofeve@yahoo.comIf you missed it, here is the most popular Laws of Eve column.
Who owns the engagement ring?
The tradition is for the mutual exchange of promises to marry to be followed by the giving of an engagement
ring by the man to the woman. This one-sided gesture is symbolic of the commitment to marry. Is the ring an absolute gift or is it a conditional gift? Should the woman keep the ring if the engagement is broken and does the manner of the break-up matter?
The Law
Interestingly, there is law on the point. It was surprising to discover the number of legal battles which have been fought over engagement rings although I have not found any cases in Jamaica. The only reported Jamaican cases which make reference to engagement rings were criminal cases involving larceny, which some may still feel are applicable.
The earliest English case I found dates back to 1576 Young v Burrell. Young succeeded in an action against Burrell for the return of a token which he had given to her during courtship, because she had married another man. The view of the court was that gifts given to a woman
during courtship and in contemplation of marriage should be returned if the engagement is broken off, and this remained the law until 1926, when the court considered it relevant to determine who had caused the break-up.
In the case of Cohen v Sellar, the court ruled that if the man had broken off the engagement without legal justification, he could not demand the return of the ring. A man who wrongly refuses to carry out a bargain should not be allowed to recover his deposit (in a manner of speaking). If, however, the woman refused to marry the man and fulfil the obligations of the gift, she had to return the ring. If the parties mutually consented to dissolve the engagement then, unless they had otherwise agreed, the engagement ring and other gifts must be returned to the giver.
The answer
The common law treats the engagement ring as a conditional gift. It will be implied, unless otherwise expressly
stated, that it is given to the woman in contemplation of marriage and on condition that she will fulfil her promise and marry the man. If she failed to marry the man, through no fault of his, the ring should be returned to him.
If the marriage took place, the engagement ring becomes the absolute property of the recipient, and will not even be affected by a later divorce. The condition upon which the ring was given, that is the occurrence of the marriage, would have been fulfilled and the contract consummated.
In England, the 1970 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act laid the issue to bed (no pun intended) by stating that the engagement ring is an absolute gift, and should not therefore be returned unless there is proof that it was given on the condition that it should be returned if the marriage did not take place. This begs the question as to whether Jennifer Lopez should have returned the 6.1-carat pink diamond ring to Ben Affleck. It is reported that it has been reacquired by the jeweller and is now being offered for resale. It is uncertain to whom the proceeds of sale belong. Some interesting facts about wedding traditions:
Chivalrous men sent a pair of gloves to their true loves. If the woman wore the gloves to church on Sunday, it signalled her acceptance of his proposal.
'Spooning' was coined by lovesick men in Wales. A suitor carved a wooden spoon and presented it to his beloved. If she wore it around her neck on a ribbon, she returned his love and they were engaged.
- Sherry-Ann McGregor
