How does one make an old debt right?

Great Debates
21

It probably depends on how serious the crime was, I would think. Which would require us to know what he thought he was doing. Intent would matter, I would think.

For example, if the dude just randomly picked your pocket and had no idea it was all you had, I think that’s slightly less evil than if he gloatingly snatched your last dollar from between your fingers while tossing you out on the street, grinning cheerfully while he predicted your impending death from exposure.

Which (I’m thinking as I write this, bear with me) leads me to think that there are two separate problems here - the taken money, and the intent to harm. So what was guy 1’s intent? Perhaps he was on his last dollar. Perhaps he was young, didn’t have any money, and was struggling with a couple of jobs while going to school. (It does of sort sound like they might have been comparable economic circumstances, since they apparently shared the apartment.) Why should we think he in any way intended to impart hardship - perhaps he just felt he needed the money. Or perhaps he just forgot about it. It doesn’t seem like guy 2 came after him for it - perhaps he didn’t even realize he was causing any problems?

Guy 2 is basically seeking punitive damages. But I think for those to be merited you have to show some sort of callousness on the part of the guilty party. Don’t you?

22

Again, how I read the OP is that #2 wasn’t actually seeking any kind of damages, be it $500 or $10,000 or anything in between. Basically he is saying “there is no reasonable amount of money which you could offer that would make up for what you did back then, and it’s way too late now anyway, so don’t bother.”

As for what was going through #1’s head at the time, obviously we can’t know that. Presumably he knew that his roommate wasn’t exactly swimming in money either, so he must have known (or “reasonably should have known” as a lawyer might put it) that he was causing the guy serious hardship. Even if #1 was poor himself, that is not a very strong excuse – a poor man stealing a bread from a rich man in order to survive can be considered justified; a poor man stealing from another man who is just as poor, not so much.

I am not sure that punitive damages (which, again, I don’t believe #2 is actually asking for) necessarily require evidence of callousness. I’d say it is enough to show that the perpetrator knew or should have known that what he did was wrong and would cause harm. Given that #1 did eventually offer to set things right, although far too little and far too late, it would appear that he understood that.

23

Bolding mine. This is the part I’d say isn’t certain, and it makes a difference. It’s quite possible that he remembered that he neglected to hand over the promised amount without at any point having sat down and said, “Hmm, by not handing over this money I’m screwing him over! Oh well!”. Perhaps he just remembered he stiffed the guy, and felt bad about stiffing the guy.

24

If he didn’t attempt to collect the debt he isn’t owed interest or adjustment for inflation, or any punitive damages. Surely he knew there was a chance he’d never get that $500 at the time or he’d have insisted on way to contact the debtor. However, as you said earlier, he was probably making things even by being a jerk in return. Hope they had a drink together and put it all in the past.

Also, as usual with such scenarios on the Dope we’re left to assume a lot of details. For instance, the landlord kept the deposit, perhaps unjustly and the landlord was the one owing the debt. Or the second guy may have been mainly responsible for the damages that entitled the landlord to keep the money.

25

Ahhh. I’ll bet you’re right about the AA thing. I’ve been on the receiving end of that more than once. One time it dredged up something I wanted to leave buried, and another time it made me aware of something I did not previously know about.*

While I’m in favor of people getting sober, I kinda hate AA.
*I embezzled a small amount of money, and took it out of your till. But [boss] never knew. I have replaced the money, with interest, and now I need to apologize to you.

For what?

For messing up your till.

And successfully covering it up so I didn’t get in trouble?

Yeah.

You know, if you’d just have said, “Rivkah, can I borrow 20 bucks,” I would have given it to you. I wouldn’t have cared if you didn’t pay me back.

Yeah, but that wasn’t how I operated back then.

26

Like a few others, I don’t understand where people are getting the idea that guy #2 is seeking the $10k. In fact he explicitly denies seeking any money.

The basic point seems obvious and completely correct. Suppose someone denies you $500 at a really desperate time in your life–for instance, maybe you need some dental work done and put off the procedure because now you can’t afford it. As a result you end up losing a few teeth permanently.

That disfigurement has a cost much greater than $500, so an offer to pay it later with interest isn’t a neutral exchange.

In short, some debts can’t be made right. Maybe guy #2 should have been more gracious and accepted the offer, but guy #1 shouldn’t leave thinking that everything is truly square. He shouldn’t leave with the lesson that theft is appropriate as long as the dollar amount is paid back later.

27

Second guy is being petty and dramatic. It is just a dick move on his part to elaborate about the whole “emotionally-adjusted-inflation”. If they won’t take the original amount back, screw 'em. Things happen and it is not in a contract, and being that long ago, you have no legal obligation to pay it back anyhow. If the second person didn’t include the whole inflation-adjusted bit, i’d say pay it back, but now you are even for him suggesting something that rude so much later.

28

It was money owed that wasn’t paid - it’s a stretch to call that theft.

I suppose the point that it’s impossible to correct or apologize for wrongs (so we shouldn’t bother!) is a good and valuable lesson to learn.

29

Remind me not to loan you any money. Skipping out on a $500 debt is the same as taking it from their wallet as far as I’m concerned (both morally and mathematically). Obviously there is an exception if (unsuccessful) attempts are made to pay the debt (which reminds me, I need to ask my actual friend for the fifth time how much I owe him on a particular debt… why is this so hard?). That didn’t happen here in a reasonable timeframe.

30

This reminds me of why I don’t lend people money. I give people money if I can afford it, and if they want to give it back later, fine, but if I can’t afford never to see it again, forget it. Which is why I’ve never given anyone more than about $100.

31

He’s not asking for the money. He’s making a point.

32

Exactly. I am (not at all) shocked about the lack of emotional intelligence in this thread.

The guy is just saying “You screwed me over at a stage in my life when it hurt the most but I don’t need any of your money now so don’t bother. The debt is forgiven”. I agree that what he really wanted was a sincere apology. Where the relationship goes from there can depend on many different things but none of it involves calculators and inflation tables.

Good old Dopers - the best people in the world at taking a moral or relationship issue and trying to turn it into a math problem.

33

That’s where the “knew or should have known” comes in. If you stiff your buddy who just lost his job out of $1,100 and never spend a moment’s thought on the consequences which that might have for him, that doesn’t excuse your act, it just confirms that you are a callous jerk.

They were roommates and colleagues, they probably had a fairly good idea of each other’s financial situation. And $1,100 is a large enough sum of money, even for well-off people with stable jobs, that very few of us would consider it acceptable to just “forget” to pay it back.

Anyway, I’m not arguing that #1 should give all his worldly possessions to #2, or anything like that. He was a thief and a jerk, but that was 30 years ago and the statue of limitations has run out by now, morally as well as legally.

It would have been a lot more admirable if, at some point during those 30 years, he had taken the initiative to contact #1 and settle the debt. But oh well, better late than never. So I agree that apologizing at the reunion was the right thing to do, and offering to pay back the money with a reasonable amount of interest was the best he could do at that point.

All I’m saying is that I can’t blame #2 for not accepting the apology. He could have chosen his words better, so that it wouldn’t appear as if he was trying to negotiate a higher amount, but I don’t think that is what he was doing. He was just informing #1 that the apology came 30 years too late and was no longer welcome.

[QUOTE=begbert2]
I suppose the point that it’s impossible to correct or apologize for wrongs (so we shouldn’t bother!) is a good and valuable lesson to learn.
[/QUOTE]

Agree except for the “so we shouldn’t bother” part. If you did something wrong, you should apologize. But the other party is not required to accept the apology. Sometimes you just have to continue to live with that stain on your conscience; your victim does not have a duty to wipe it off for you.

34

Since this was apparently the first time in 30 years that they met again, despite having each other’s contact details, I doubt that either of them will be terribly disappointed if they don’t end up having a deep meaningful friendship from here on.

35

As presented in the OP, I read him as having said something akin to “You want to make things square, huh? In that case, give me THIS. Or alternatively, forget it. No making-things-square for you.”

And honestly, I’m still only seeing one point being made - that guy 2 is a) very bitter and very much not over it, and b) willing to be an ass about it.

36

He said explicitly “I don’t expect you to pay a dime”.

He’s a making a clear point and frankly a valid one. It’s not being a jerk to stand up for yourself. He’s not obligated to make the person feel better and he’s actually explaining why the apology and money isn’t enough, rather than just blowing the guy off.

37

I wouldn’t borrow any money from you, so no worries. And I will choose to disagree with your assessment of morality and your brutal assault on the english language. It’s way, way more accurate to call copyright infringement “theft” than neglecting to pay back a debt. At least in the latter case at least something was taken without permission (though not removed); in the lending case the sum was freely given (though not paid back per the expected schedule).

Sorry, but I’m a bit of a pedant when it comes to language. I can’t help it. Though in my defense, I’m damned near certain that no system of criminal law would consider neglecting to pay back a debt to be theft either.

38

I agree completely. And second guy doesn’t even want the money. But the money now makes no difference in first guys’ life, it is no repayment and in no way ameliorates the hardship he went through previously because someone of the selfish action of the first guy.

Hell, I find it incredibly offensive that first guy is treating it like a willing loan “I pay it back and we’re square”, even though he stole from him And as others have said, no, it may not legal theft, but that’s what it ultimately comes down to.

I absolutely loathe the pressure to forgive and the idea you’re bitter or evil or mean or viscous or immoral if you are unwilling to forgive someone who knowing did you harm.

39

Yes, that is what he is saying – and he expects the second outcome, not the first.

If Bob has wronged Alice somehow, and she says “I will not forgive you unless you take a knife and stab yourself in the gut with it, so that you may feel a tiny portion of the pain you caused me” she probably does not actually expect Bob to stab himself. She might even try to stop him if he turns out to be crazy enough to do so. She is just informing him (somewhat melodramatically) that he isn’t going to receive her forgiveness any time soon.

Same here, with #2 stating that it would take at least $10,000 for him to consider the debt settled. He doesn’t expect #1 to pay him that amount, he doesn’t even want #1 to pay him that amount, he is just pointing out that anything less will not absolve #1 of his guilt, and therefore the debt is going to remain unsettled.

Don’t forget that #1 is the one who brought up the topic. For all we know, #2 had forgotten about it long ago and would not have mentioned it at any point during the reunion if #1 had not brought it up.

In my mental picture of the conversation, #2 is mostly just bemused – he had put the whole thing out of his mind long ago, he would not have brought it up if #1 hadn’t, and he doesn’t care at all about getting the money back. But he does remember the harm which the theft caused him at the time, so when #1 offers to pay him the inflation-adjusted amount back, he coolly points out why that is not quite as generous a settlement as #1 believes it to be.

Why would pointing out a flaw in another person’s thinking be evidence of bitterness? Suppose somebody steals a lottery ticket from me, wins a large prize, and then offers to give me the $10 I paid for the ticket back. If I go “yeah no, that’s not how this works”, does that make me bitter? I mean, I probably am, in that situation, but would you agree that a person could be as cool and rational as Mr. Spock and still not agree that this is a fair deal which makes us even again?

40

Irrelevant. Debt is a special case legally speaking, but what’s definitely illegal is “theft by failing to make agreed disposition of received funds”; that is, you gave someone money (freely) with the expectation that it would be conveyed to the rightful recipient, and it was instead kept by the intermediary. That’s not what happened here, but my point is that whether it’s theft or not has no relation to whether the property was given freely or not. There is also “theft by deception”.

Whether an unpaid debt legally counts as theft probably depends on the country, state, and even court, but the colloquial definition does not at all depend on the details of the original property transfer.