This is a case that happened in Shenzhen. The meaning is very simple, the guy bought a house for his girlfriend for the purpose of marriage. However, afterwards, the marriage tie did not take place. So, the guy wants to get back to the property. The woman naturally would not agree, but the court supported the guy's claim.
There is really nothing controversial about this. A casual search on the Internet reveals that similar precedents are not uncommon.
If you have to say that there is controversy, it is that many people think that the woman has not gained anything, and she is too much of a loss. Personally, I think it's a feudal idea. The details are as follows:
The man and the two parties live together based on the relationship of the couple, if the woman does not make some benefits, the woman suffers, why?I think that men and women have come together for love, and physical contact belongs to you and me, so why should the woman suffer?What woman has been with another man, and she will not marry Yunyun in the future, it is all feudal thinking. If "not getting married" is a risk, and the woman is willing to live together before marriage, should she also bear half of the consequences of knowingly committing the crime?
There are still many places where there is a bride price custom, and the court has also determined that a large gift of real estate before marriage is equivalent to a bride price. If the marriage cannot be completed, the bride price will naturally be returned, which is not much controversial. The crux of the matter is that after the bride price is settled, the two parties live together. "The woman suffers from the loss" is very popular, so the bride price has become a compensation to make up for the woman's loss. Is this the law of the king, is this the law?
After living together, only she knows whether she is good to marry or not. On the grounds of "not being able to marry", unjustifiably amplifying the "woman's loss theory" is a moral kidnapping and is obviously unfair to the man!
You must know that being willing to buy a house for the woman is itself an expression of goodwill to get married. And real estate is not a small favor, and it needs to be poured out at every turn. This is enough to prove that the man's gift is friendly and pure. The man's original goodwill is condensed in the act of gifting, and the marriage cannot be realized for many reasons, but it does not negate the man's original goodwill. Therefore, out of fairness and reasonableness, the man's original intention of goodwill must first be affirmed, and returning this goodwill can in turn prove that the woman is not selfish, but really inappropriate.
Some people say that the woman is too stupid and naïve. If you want me to see, there are no men and women in marriage and love who are not naïve. In this case, isn't it stupid enough for a man to buy a house for a woman?However, the fool of ** love, regardless of the consequences, this is human nature.
In short, I personally believe that the court's support for the guy's claim is an expression of positive energy. for everyone to communicate.