Reclaimed Gift

[Spankymonkey]

Although A and B were not married, nor engaged, the item in question, is jewelry, but is not a ring.

Should the letter of claim simply refer to the Interference with Goods Act, rather than to the tort of conversion?

[diy]

Can B prove/counter?

B cannot prove the item was ever gifted to him.

On first reading of the OP I had an impression that a very short period of time had transpired between the gift and the withdrawal. If some time had passed, then I think the gift might have been transferred.

DId B allow A to take back the gift and only on reflection decide otherwise?

[dls]

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 section 3

The need for the above may suggest that gifts are not contractual, and are open to challenge.

[atticus]

Or that there is no implied term that on the end of an engagement the ring will be given back.

[Spankymonkey]

Can B prove/counter?

B cannot prove the item was ever gifted to him.

On first reading of the OP I had an impression that a very short period of time had transpired between the gift and the withdrawal. If some time had passed, then I think the gift might have been transferred.

DId B allow A to take back the gift and only on reflection decide otherwise?

Yes, B had the item for about a year I believe. B had no idea the item had ben taken until it was too late.

The item is an expensive watch by the way. Sorry for not being more specific from the outset, so as to avoid this confusion with engagement rings. As I say this was a girlfriend boyfriend break up, no engagement or marriage involved.

[atticus]

So the gift appears to have become an absolute one. I cannot see why a claim for return of property should not have prospects of success. It is not a claim to enforce the gift, but for the return of property or payment of its value.

[Spankymonkey]

The defendant's has chosen a different tact it would seem. Rather than dispute the giving of the gift, she is claiming that the watch was never in her possession. Despite the fact, all of the claimant's possessions were in her property at the time of the split up, most of which were returned. The claimant is at a loss as to what evidence could prove the watch was in her possession.

Is this no longer a matter for the civil courts and just a straightforward theft?

[dls]

Is this no longer a matter for the civil courts and just a straightforward theft?

Very unlikely.

[atticus]

How does she explain what she initially said? Does she say that if she had the watch she would give it back?

[Spankymonkey]

Her original position was communicated through a third party as there is no contact between the two outside of the claim. Her recent response to the claim form is that she does not know where the watch is. There has been no suggestion made through either form that if she knew of its whereabouts she would return it.