- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The boyfriend should not have an expectation of safety for his money, anywhere other than an insured bank (unless of course it is the 80's and the bank is a savings and loan). So the boyfriend is responsible for his loss...but...
The host feels responsible. Maybe he even suspects foul play with the help. Perhaps he has prior experience. In any event he offers to compensate. He is not obligated to make the offer, but he does. Don't offer if you don't expect someone to accept. The boyfriend is not obligated by courtesy to refuse the offer. If he was, the whole contract of generous offers and acceptance would be undermined. What is the trust in an offer if refusal is the expectation.
Dad offers to reimburse the host. He feels embarassed. That's his problem, not the host's or the boyfriend's. Again, offer on the table...offer accepted. Fine.
Ahhh, but there is the rub. The father's friend accepted the money, even though the father was in no way obligated to pay him. The father's friend is guilty of the same thing the father is accusing the boyfriend of.
Dad expects reimbursment. Nobody is offering anymore. Dad is responsible for his own money decisions.
But how to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction? Everyone needs to sit down, daughter, mother, father, boyfriend and discuss the events as they perceive them. The resolution should come in the form of a handshake and an understanding and not money. The father can afford to take a loss on this one. The boyfriend, as a thank you to all parties for their concern, can offer something other than money. A gift of some sort. Perhaps photography.
