Read other letters about this article

• Sunday, January 22, 2006 09:59 PM

  call me the ethicist

  There are number timing issues in regard to how everything unfolded. It's unclear from the letter if the parents were on Safari during the whole time (i.e., from the time of theft to the payment) or just away during the payment. I would be more sympathetic to the LW if it were the latter.

  I also place more of the burden on the LW rather than the BF. These are her family friends, not her BF's. Since the theft occured in their house, the family friends are justified in offering the BF repayment. However as a kind guest, he is obligated to refuse. The deus ex machina (i.e., the rich dad) should have offered to discreetly and invisibly to make the BF whole in some manner he can't refuse, i.e., offering him some bogus photography assignment.

  Of course everything has been thrown out of whack because the BF took the money and ran. That would certainly be the case if these "negotiations" took place purposely at a time the parents were away. If I were the Dad, I, too, would have been mortified at what happened. I agree with Cary, it's not about the money, but being a gracious guest, and the BF hasn't been that, which, indirectly, reflects upon the Dad. The BF, if he is truly this cash-strapped youth, should've been a good smart guest and asked his hosts to store the cash on his behalf somewhere in the house. Had this happened, and the money was still stolen, then the host should've offerd payment which the BF would be justified to take. However, as it was, the host was never truly given knowledge nor the responsibility of keeping $1,000 of cash lying on the ground safe.

  I do think there is more to the situation than meets the eye, and if anything, I feel like the LW writer is in some way too quick to defend her BF.

  —princeprigio Read princeprigio's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel