Entitlement

JPost · 2018-03-14T18:28:21+00:00

This looks really fake with bad acting.

PoleRyder · 2018-03-11T20:38:23+00:00

I love that excuse “but I was drunk so...” which apparently makes everything forgivable and ok.

JohnnyKay9 · 2018-03-13T14:56:18+00:00

Funny as this is. I'm sure it is fake

vostok-Abdullah · 2018-03-13T22:02:03+00:00

lol the judge and her reactions!

Also, Adam Vincent dropping lowkey insults lol

modernintellect · 2018-03-17T21:33:01+00:00

Anyone fall in love with the judge? She's so understanding...

BlackBoxInquiry · 2018-03-19T00:32:03+00:00

That ladies and gentlemen, this 'person' is the definition of a whore .

JohnCofD · 2018-03-15T00:32:16+00:00

r/uselessredcircle

i_shit_on_things · 2018-03-21T04:52:27+00:00

That was satisfying

MistsOfDis-Ill-usion · 2018-03-13T00:00:33+00:00

What the fuck, this is how men are turned sour against women and never get married

Rk1987 · 2018-03-16T23:41:57+00:00

In the state of California an engagement ring is a promise! Not an unconditional gift. By law it has to be given back unless its after marriage. What a fucking entitled slut cunt!

"In California we turn to a law dating back to 1939 which specifically addresses engagement rings and other gifts in contemplation of marriage--Civil Code section 1590; it states: Where either party to a contemplated marriage in this State makes a gift of money or property to the other on the basis or assumption that the marriage will take place, in the event that the donee refuses to enter into the marriage as contemplated or that it is given up by mutual consent, the donor may recover such gift or such part of its value as may, under all of the circumstances of the case, be found by a court or jury to be just. In this case the "donor" is the person (i.e., the man) giving the engagement ring, and the "donee" is the person (i.e., the woman) receiving it. A gift in contemplation of marriage can be revoked, unlike other gifts. Thus, California law is very clear on what happens to the ring - if the woman calls off the wedding, it goes back to the man. Also, if both parties agree that the wedding is off then the man gets the ring back. This California law has wide ranging impact for property given in contemplation of marriage. In an important case on the subject - Shaw v. Shaw (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 159, a man and woman lived together for four years. He placed her name on real property because he relied on her promise that she would marry him when her divorce was final. The couple separated before marrying and the woman eventually married another. The court awarded all property back to the man because she failed to marry him. This has an impact on our society today because of the number of couples living together before marriage."

tmr232723 · 2018-03-11T20:44:15+00:00

Yeah he’s totally overreacting.

Title	Entitlement
Author	Cavster18
Upvotes	142
Comments	13
Date	March 11, 2018 8:19 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PussyPassDenied
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/83pb58/entitlement/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PussyPassDenied/entitlement.904536 https://theredarchive.com/post/904536

Comments