Here is the scenario:
Jack owes Stacy €20. Jack buys a ticket to see a band (cost of ticket: €24) and then gets put on the guest list. Jack asks Stacy if she wants to go see the band. Stacy agrees, thinking she’ll have to foot the cost for her own ticket. Jack then offers Stacy his ticket in lieu of the €20. Stacy agrees. However when they get to the venue they discover that the guest list actually has “Jack +1” so they both get in free.
Does Jack still owe Stacy €20?
Yes, unless they can sell the ticket in hand for that much (a €4 savings for the buyer) in front of the venue.
I’m not really clear on why that would make a difference? Could you clarify?
If I was Stacey I would consider it paid.
She was prepared to pay to see the concert and accepted Jack’s offer in lieu of payment. Jack had 2 tickets, one of which he paid for for Stacey. He could have offered his free one to someone else (another friend perhaps) but chose to take Stacey instead. Regardless, she did not pay to attend the concert which she would have otherwise.
Jack’s debt has been repaid but Stacy has no obligion to give her +1 entry to Jack. She could give him the plus one if he pays her for half the ticket and all would be fair.
If they sell the ticket in front of the venue, Stacey takes the money.
The debt stands until Stacey gets cash. The guest-listing was simply a windfall for both of them.
Given that they are friends, it wouldn’t be wrong for Stacey to tell Jack, “thanks for bringing me, and forget about the twenty.” But it would be improper for Jack to expect her to, and unless she insists otherwise, he should try to repay her in cash.
Why, since they had agreed that she would take a ticket to the gig in lieu of cash?
Stacy doesn’t have a +1, Jack does.
She didn’t end up taking that ticket; she got in on Jack’s guest-listing.
She’s only “getting” the ticket in this scenario if it can be sold to someone else.
I guess the question is whether you consider attendance at the gig to be the same as the ticket. Personally, I would, and I would consider the debt repaid.
Stacey agreed to accept Jack’s ticket in lieu of the cash. It turned out to be a +1 ticket. It now belongs to Stacey. Her choices are that she can take Jack, take someone else, go alone, or sell the +1.
But she has already agreed to the trade. What she can’t do is make Jack pay the cash he owed. She got what she bargained for (the ticket).
Ah, I misunderstood the situation. I’d consider the debt repaid as Jack could have sold the ticket to someone else if she hadn’t accepted it in place of the debt.
No, it didn’t. The hard ticket and the +1 are not the same thing.
If Stacey does take the hard ticket she agreed to accept, Jack still has the +1 attached to his name on the guest list.
Why aren’t they? They both represent the same thing, i.e. admission to the gig. Stacy didn’t agree to accept the ticket just so she could put it on her wall or something.
I was explaining to anyone who misunderstands how many admissions are in play. There are three in the scenario.
But how is it that admission by hard ticket satisfies the debt while admission by +1 doesn’t, given that both those admissions are of objectively equal value (i.e. Jack could sell either of them to a third party for the same price)?
No, Stacy accepted the ticket as payment. At this point the transaction between Jack and Stacy is completed. If Stacy had wanted the money she could of said so and then Jack could of then sold the ticket.
Them both getting in for free has no bearing on the already completed transaction.
Exactly. Jack has the right to seek someone outside the venue to be his plus one. If he elects to choose Stacy, then she has the right to try to sell her hard ticket. If neither of them choose to try to make a quick buck though, Stacy has still recieved what she paid for.
Look, my basic point is this: Obviously interpretations can vary, but since the burden in a debt situation is always on the person owing the debt, nobody but Stacy is entitled to rule the debt paid if there’s any ambiguity. The only unambiguous repayment is twenty euros cash in Stacy’s hand.
FWIW, if I were Stacy I would probably call the debt paid, unless I really needed the cash. If I were Jack, I would still pay, unless Stacy insisted I keep it.
It’s Stacy’s call, not Jack’s and not ours.
Here’s how I think: Jack could have asked someone else down to the concert. The price of admission covers the debt; hence it seems that Stacy is paid. Of course, this is assuming that Stacy wants to attend the concert in the first place!
Though I will not be miffed if Stacy still wants me to pay back in hard cash, unless I have someone else I want to bring along, or saving that +1 for.