<p>@27
First, let me remove your word “Woman.” As reflected in my earlier post, I like things sex-and-gender neutral, so I’ll say “recipient.”</p>
<p>I don’t agree with the “conditional gift” argument. I just quoted Wikipedia, pointing out that there is in fact legal precedent. Had I ruled the world, it is simply a matter of giving a gift. That the culture loads the scenario with a particular expectation is silly - we cannot assume that both participants in the gift-giving process acknowledge the same culture in exact form. The law does not tell people what creed to live by, and the failure of the expectation is the donor’s loss. Not that I would like to acknowledge cultural awareness in court, it is rather rare for the donor in such a situation to make specific stipulations upon presentation of the gift. Perhaps the OP could inform us of specifics, but the OP may not be privy to that information. Of course, refusal to return the object may sour the relationship between the recipient and donor, but then why does the blame fall on the recipient for the soured relationship? The donor could just back off.</p>
<p>Suppose I hand you a book, and simultaneously ask you to join me on a voyage. (Recall that burden of work or justification in any proposal is regarded as on the side of the proposer, and it may usually be assumed the one who is asking is the one who stands to benefit more clearly, so the proposer must find some means to entice the proposee; in the marital case at hand, let us presume ceteris paribus the OP’s friend would have proposed if it were more clearly in her interest as opposed to being in the interest of the prospective spouse.) I think this situation is similar. The main difference at hand is the value of the book as opposed to the value of the actual gift used in the OP’s account. Assume that I did not give you a contract or discuss it previously; I just handed you a book. What do you make of that? Is the book in your custody, of my free will, via an act that has been sealed in history?</p>
<p>It reminds me of some readings in anthropology; the native Americans had their own rituals of supposedly to-be-returned gifts, as did the coastal Polynesians and their circles of friends and conch shells with expectations of sharing along so that shells would move far, in friendship, as they traded gifts over long distances. The native north North American tribes (Canada) gave gifts to shame and impress expecting gifts in return as their improvised warfare, but, quite rudely, tradition is not law.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, there is legal precedent. Let them take it to court if they think their arguments stand.</p>
<p>Is this satisfactory?</p>