In the Text Case, Campbell V

In the text case, Campbell v. Robinson, Campbell, the plaintiff, sued the defendant, his former fiancé Robinson, claiming that she wrongfully refused to return an engagement ring when the marriage was cancelled. The defendant claimed that she was entitled to keep the ring because Campbell was at fault for calling off the marriage. Further, Robinson claimed that Campbell told her to keep the ring, even after the engagement was called off, a claim that Campbell denied. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, and Campbell appealed. Which of the following outcomes was the result of the appeal in the case?

A) The original verdict was affirmed, and the defendant was entitled to keep the ring because the termination of the engagement was the plaintiff's fault.
B) The original verdict was affirmed and the defendant was entitled to keep the ring because it was an inter vivos gift, and there had been delivery, donative intent, and acceptance of the gift when she initially received it.
C) The original verdict was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial because a jury question was presented as to whether the plaintiff made an absolute gift of the ring to the defendant after the termination of the engagement, and errors on the jury charge and verdict form prejudiced the plaintiff.
D) The original verdict was affirmed in part and reversed in part, because under principles of equity, the plaintiff was entitled to keep the ring, but only if she paid the defendant half of its value and that if she refused to do so, the ring would be sold and the proceeds split between the parties.
E) The original verdict was reversed, because the ring was a conditional gift, and when the engagement was terminated, the defendant was required to return the ring.