Real property is classified as land and anything growing on, attached to, or erected on it. The definition of personal property is any movable or intangible thing subject to ownership and not classified as real property. Bailment is delivery of personal property by one person (bailor) to another (bailee) who holds the property for a certain purpose, usually under an express or implied-in-fact contract. Unlike the sale or gift of personal property, this involves a change in possession, but not a change in title.
My position on this issue is that once an engagement ring is given to the donee, the done should have full ownership rights in the property. With respect to classification, the engagement ring would not fit the requirements of real property, as it is not land or anything growing on, attached to, or erected on it. The engagement ring meets the definition of personal property in that it is a movable things subject to ownership, and does not fit the requirements to be classified as real property. However, there is no bailment in the given scenario (i.e. one person gives another person an engagement ring) because the first person is not giving the engagement ring to the second person to “hold” the property (i.e. the ring) for a certain purpose. Although there is a common social understanding that engagement rings are part of a consent to marriage (whether actual or apparent) the ring is not the consideration of a contract, in that it is not “that which motivates a person to do something.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Legal Characteristics of Personal Property, Real Property, and Bailments".
All definitions being considered, once an engagement ring is given to the receiver (done) it should be considered an absolute gift and they should have full ownership rights in the property (i.e. the ring).
