There were no funds received by party A. It’s not clear there was a legal debt either. The money was given to the landlord by party B. Party A may have only felt bad about not following up on the voluntary offer to help out Party B.
You made a big deal of “freely given” previously and are now apparently backing away.
Of course this is a legal debt. Unless party A totally denied that the agreement took place and there was no way to prove otherwise (unlikely, since this is a shared rent situation), no court in the land would say that there wasn’t a legally binding debt.
Some of you still don’t get it. It has nothing to do with specific laws. It is just about someone being screwed over when they were younger and wanting as little to do with the perpetrator ever again even if that includes forgetting about any money. That is all he was saying in the nicest way possible. This isn’t a computer program. The forgivee was just telling the thief (kindly) that he doesn’t want his money and he can live with his guilt. I have done versions of the same thing. Some people just aren’t worth dealing with.
I have had some pretty extreme reconciliation experiences that were successful and a few others that weren’t. The most successful ones were just asking that they did something nice for my kids or a charity because that is the only way to change my fundamental opinion. I don’t want anything from them personally. A few of them did it and it worked out well.
Where did I make a big deal of “freely given”. It is not necessarily a legal debt. Offering to help someone out is not a legal obligation. We don’t know that the money was actually owed to party B by party A at all. If party A offered to help out party he’s still a jerk to some degree for not following up in any way but that doesn’t make it a legal debt. I can offer to give you $500 if you say you need it but I’m not legally obligated to give it you, or even morally. I’d owe you no more than an explanation or apology for not following through.
We still don’t know that that party B was screwed over by party A any more than that he didn’t fulfill some statement offering to give him money. We don’t know that party A actually had any obligation to pay anything to party B. You guys are assuming facts not in evidence.
OK council, it seemed pretty obvious to me that a (former?) dickhead truly believes that he screwed over a reasonable person a long time ago and is admitting guilt. It is true that everything involved is past the statute of limitations but this isn’t a trial. It is just simple human relationship dynamics. We don’t generally run casual human interactions like a court system.
They lived in the apartment together. Unless there’s some evidence to the contrary, the usual situation is that rent and other ancillary costs are split.
It doesn’t matter if there’s a formal agreement or not. This situation happens tens of millions of times a month; it’s so common that there’s no need to even spell it out. Two people share an apartment and they share the costs. One of them cuts the check and the other owes his half to the first. This is as legal a debt as anything despite not necessarily being spelled out explicitly.
I will grant that is the usual situation. However, we don’t know why the rent deposit wasn’t returned. If it was to cover legitimate costs incurred by the landlord then your reasoning might apply, but one party may be more responsible for those costs than the other, and the landlord may have simply cheated party B, which is often the case.
He apologized and offered to pay. That’s more than enough in this circumstance whatever the details may be. And we still don’t know that he screwed over party B in any way more than in their minds, or that party B was a reasonable person. In fact, the OP provides evidence that party B is not reasonable.
Party B is trying to explain to him that what he did really hurt him. Party A opened the door: he doesn’t get to decide to what extent B was harmed and how fast B has to get over it.
I think the perfect reference to this type of thing is to watch the first two seasons of My Name is Earl. It is about a former thug that suddenly believed in karma and sought forgiveness for every bad thing he had ever done in his life (hundreds of them). Sometimes it takes a whole lot more than money or a simple apology. There are no lawyers or math involved. It is just about trying to undo past wrongs which is often much harder than it sounds and sometimes very easy depending on the circumstances.
At least twice I’ve had people bounce checks, get sent to collections, then years later attempt to do business with me again. When either I or my computer remember and point out the past incident, they say, “oh my, that was years ago” as if I should just forget about it.
I refuse to do business with them. When they try to “smooth things over”, I’ve pointed out that I’d rather not do business with a fucking thief.
I’d probably take the same stance if the fucking thief was a prior acquaintance, although it’s never come up.