Money Moral Dilemma: Should Carrie return her present?

12357

Comments

  • She can come round when Freda is out and hang the said dress up on the door frame

    Ooops Freda is on me Shoulder!!!!
  • I need a lawyer, is there one around at this time of night?
  • No, she shouldn't, and has no obligation to, either! Once a gift has been given, it is the sole property of the recipient to keep or dispose of as they choose. Otherwise it's not a gift!
  • janbanan
    janbanan Posts: 90 Forumite
    edited 31 December 2009 at 9:40PM
    The friend did not spend the money to pay for your gas bill or whatever it is you'd rather use the money for. If you don't like the present, then at least it's none of your own money wasted.
    You can of course ignore this and get the cash and not tell your friend about it, just because you can, but then you probably don't value that friendship much.
  • gmc1
    gmc1 Posts: 9 Forumite
    edited 1 January 2010 at 3:24AM
    I know this. I know this. Emmybee is completely right.

    The thing to remember is that it is up to the recipient of the gift, and the meaning of the dilemma I'll get to in a few moments. It's up to Carrie, whoever she is, if she exists. And while I feel this person should not return the dress for money as it was a gift of choosing and so was love or at least respect and very nice thoughts and kindness, that's nothing really to do with anything, just an emotive reaction, and an initial reaction that logic tells me after a while is the wrong reaction of the two possible reactions.

    The answer is to differentiate 2 things. 1 is the legal facts. These are that Carrie now owns the dress absolutely and can do anything she likes with it, including auctioning it for a final bid of 5p it in front of her friend's house for her friend to see. Not a nice notion, but the point is the choice, whatever it could be, is Carries as the dress is fully hers and legally, in terms of ownership and what she can do, that's all that matters. If the giver does not appreciate this fully, they do not appreciate the full independence and liberty of the being, of her friend. This is the condition, the awareness under which every gift ought to be given. A gift ought to be given with the love of knowing that a splending gold ring might be easily be immediately melted over a home fire into a nugget because having a home made gold nugget simply would make the reciptient much happier than what they see as a bland, gold ring. You don't know what people like. Giving up a possession is giving up all rights to it and giving up all assumptions about the relationship between it and the recipient. The thing to really realise is that, while you are in fact actually giving, for example, a specific thing, for example a one off designer dress, it is nearly exclusively that you are giving the idea of this, of you acquiring that special item and giving it, though the physical item indeed changes hands. How many people "give on" Christmas gifts they either don't like, or do like but feel they need more presents for others, or just because simply think they have too much or would have no time or occasion for a gift or gifts received? Lots and lots of people do this. From special boxes of spa accessories costing £100, assumed to be a £15 box, given as a gift again, to socks not even looked at, handed to someone who actually would appreciate them, or someone who wouldn't. The giving, the idea, is the main thing with gifts, and once the physical thing is given, that's really nearly all that there was for the giver - the concept, though borne out in actuality, of giving that. It's quite a hard thing to come to terms with, and is a paradox, like so much when seen truly on earth.

    So the real definition of a gift is the legal definition - that the thing is theirs to do anything they want with it - combined with the actualisation of an idea but where the idea, a wish, has hugely the greater importance. We wish someone to really have wanted, be delighted with our gift, to want to keep it perhaps - but that's only a wish, and only a part of our wish expressing the desire to make someone else happy, where the important thing is that literally in itself, not exactly the item which proves it. That you went to a lot of trouble for the tiem is expressed in the wish, not in fact the item itself - the item is the tender but you can't buy a wish.

    Beyond the legal element we think about the kindness and the wish in giving the dress, and the first point, the legal point, is so important because it probably takes precedence over the second, the kindness & wish element. Because a gift is only a thing of material value and possession in itself, where it must be every time that the wish exists on a completely separate and (bizarrely) unrelated plain - they are in different and incomparable dimensions, though it's all about giving a physical thing. True to form, earthly truth is stranger than you might have thought. It can easily be regarded that the recipient of a gift might expect the giver wished the best for them and wished the most value from the present chosen. For the recipient, it may easily be that the most value is in the monetary equivalent of the dress - if the need is so much, the dress itself may be obscured into oblivion - for example no outings to nice restaurants, parties, bars or hotels in the new dress because these simply can't be afforded by Carrie. What good is it hanging in the closet?

    Anyway the kindness & wish consideration really does exist in a lower way to the legal consideration (where in terms of what really matters, the opposite is true, though only as long as you realise the legal consideration defines the context of the other consideration, the wish - this is earth, that is the context). The legal consideration states that the item has a value and the owner is Carrie and the value of the item is only whatever Carrie wishes / can get for it / decides to do with it. This is important to bear in mind, and it is important also to realise that this concurs with the fact that the value of the item for Carrie, in itself, can never be assumed to be possible to be more than Carrie herself could appreciate it. You can't make there be a value to an item, an item which you hapen to have given, in terms of the holding of the item dear by the recipient, which the recipient never sees nor would see in the actual item itself. This ought to tell you that the recipient is the best judge of what to do with any gift - should it make her happier to keep it, or even auction it at half price for a homeless charity at Christmas, if that is what the recipient prefers and chooses. If that is what the recipient chooses, then that is what you, as the giver, should be pleased to have brought about from your gift, not only in the aid to a charity of £200 from the auction, half what you paid as it happened, but in making the recipient happy in being able to do what she did. Or even, then, sad to have done what she did, that being a part of her life she feels, to her, is "learning". Whatever.

    At the end of the day, the monetary value of the dress is bound up in the gift, and if Carrie can get the money legally - 14 day no reason return, for example, that's her license, and she would probably not be wrong to assume her friend wouldn't be thinking of the best for her unless her friend realised the need for money was much greater, and a much greater gift. It's rare that friends give each other cash. It's a bit too embarrassing for people to give cash in 2 ways (if it hasn't been discussed or asked for). It's suggesting the other person needs it while you happen just to have it, and from the other direction, it's embarassing to present yourself as someone who can't ascertain the proper worth of a selected present. And here I note, of course, this very much does exist, but, again, it is always secondary to the legal definition of a gift. If you love someone or really respect them, you will respect fully their absolute right to make their own decisions, not only generally, but in terms of their property that you have given to them (don't forget also that NO gift NEEDS to be accepted), or what is the point of giving to them when all you value is, not them, but your own gift and your own imagination of what you fantasise life should be like?

    At the end of the day, anyone giving a gift is likely to be, and ought to be, at least quite aware if they are giving something of equivalent currency value. For gift giving on earth only exists on earth, and, for example a gold ring can't be given on earth yet in some fantasy land that is not on earth - that's not here. Gold exists on earth, not in a fantasy land which we wish was on earth instead.

    What you certainly can't give, for 3 examples (to finish) is the actual liking of a gift you find you feel you really want the recipient to like by the recipient, nor the keeping of any gift item for whatever reason, nor the feeling by the recipient that he or she can include a gift item into their lives - it may easily seem to a gift recipient (and seem forever) that a gift, though well liked, simply is just not going to slot in to the recipient's life, even however much they would like it to. For being an earthly citizen (citizen of earth is a good term, as it implies, truly, that we are bound up with having to realise lots about the contexts of earth) really means appreciating that we are bound here and nowhere else whilst we are here, and thinking anything else is escapist, childish at first, and then mentally ill if we persevere in wishing to blind ourselves to the reality that we are only earthly citizens when on earth, rather than perhaps space knights or whatever we falsely imagine we are.
  • hastingsboi27
    hastingsboi27 Posts: 1 Newbie
    edited 1 January 2010 at 6:32AM
    No, if it is a designer dress then she should keep it, designer items that cost £400 are only ever going to increase in price, treat it as an investment item! That way she doesn't upset her friend and she has something that will only increase in value!

    Or the other solution is to take the dress back, get the £400 and then buy the same dress in the sales at a fraction of the price, then she has a bit of money to pay the bills and still has a fantastic new designer dress!
  • aliasojo
    aliasojo Posts: 23,053 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Wow gmc1....you really gave that some thought. :D
    Herman - MP for all! :)
  • Exchange the dress, maybe for a sale bargain, use the extra money wisely.
  • If she wants to convert one of her possessions into cash she should go ahead, the real problem is the fact that she does not already have £400 to hand instead.
  • hundredk
    hundredk Posts: 1,182 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    gmc1 wrote: »
    I know this. I know this. Emmybee is completely right.

    The thing to remember is that it is up to the recipient of the gift, and the meaning of the dilemma I'll get to in a few moments. It's up to Carrie, whoever she is, if she exists. And while I feel this person should not return the dress for money as it was a gift of choosing and so was love or at least respect and very nice thoughts and kindness, that's nothing really to do with anything, just an emotive reaction, and an initial reaction that logic tells me after a while is the wrong reaction of the two possible reactions.

    The answer is to differentiate 2 things. 1 is the legal facts. These are that Carrie now owns the dress absolutely and can do anything she likes with it, including auctioning it for a final bid of 5p it in front of her friend's house for her friend to see. Not a nice notion, but the point is the choice, whatever it could be, is Carries as the dress is fully hers and legally, in terms of ownership and what she can do, that's all that matters. If the giver does not appreciate this fully, they do not appreciate the full independence and liberty of the being, of her friend. This is the condition, the awareness under which every gift ought to be given. A gift ought to be given with the love of knowing that a splending gold ring might be easily be immediately melted over a home fire into a nugget because having a home made gold nugget simply would make the reciptient much happier than what they see as a bland, gold ring. You don't know what people like. Giving up a possession is giving up all rights to it and giving up all assumptions about the relationship between it and the recipient. The thing to really realise is that, while you are in fact actually giving, for example, a specific thing, for example a one off designer dress, it is nearly exclusively that you are giving the idea of this, of you acquiring that special item and giving it, though the physical item indeed changes hands. How many people "give on" Christmas gifts they either don't like, or do like but feel they need more presents for others, or just because simply think they have too much or would have no time or occasion for a gift or gifts received? Lots and lots of people do this. From special boxes of spa accessories costing £100, assumed to be a £15 box, given as a gift again, to socks not even looked at, handed to someone who actually would appreciate them, or someone who wouldn't. The giving, the idea, is the main thing with gifts, and once the physical thing is given, that's really nearly all that there was for the giver - the concept, though borne out in actuality, of giving that. It's quite a hard thing to come to terms with, and is a paradox, like so much when seen truly on earth.

    So the real definition of a gift is the legal definition - that the thing is theirs to do anything they want with it - combined with the actualisation of an idea but where the idea, a wish, has hugely the greater importance. We wish someone to really have wanted, be delighted with our gift, to want to keep it perhaps - but that's only a wish, and only a part of our wish expressing the desire to make someone else happy, where the important thing is that literally in itself, not exactly the item which proves it. That you went to a lot of trouble for the tiem is expressed in the wish, not in fact the item itself - the item is the tender but you can't buy a wish.

    Beyond the legal element we think about the kindness and the wish in giving the dress, and the first point, the legal point, is so important because it probably takes precedence over the second, the kindness & wish element. Because a gift is only a thing of material value and possession in itself, where it must be every time that the wish exists on a completely separate and (bizarrely) unrelated plain - they are in different and incomparable dimensions, though it's all about giving a physical thing. True to form, earthly truth is stranger than you might have thought. It can easily be regarded that the recipient of a gift might expect the giver wished the best for them and wished the most value from the present chosen. For the recipient, it may easily be that the most value is in the monetary equivalent of the dress - if the need is so much, the dress itself may be obscured into oblivion - for example no outings to nice restaurants, parties, bars or hotels in the new dress because these simply can't be afforded by Carrie. What good is it hanging in the closet?

    Anyway the kindness & wish consideration really does exist in a lower way to the legal consideration (where in terms of what really matters, the opposite is true, though only as long as you realise the legal consideration defines the context of the other consideration, the wish - this is earth, that is the context). The legal consideration states that the item has a value and the owner is Carrie and the value of the item is only whatever Carrie wishes / can get for it / decides to do with it. This is important to bear in mind, and it is important also to realise that this concurs with the fact that the value of the item for Carrie, in itself, can never be assumed to be possible to be more than Carrie herself could appreciate it. You can't make there be a value to an item, an item which you hapen to have given, in terms of the holding of the item dear by the recipient, which the recipient never sees nor would see in the actual item itself. This ought to tell you that the recipient is the best judge of what to do with any gift - should it make her happier to keep it, or even auction it at half price for a homeless charity at Christmas, if that is what the recipient prefers and chooses. If that is what the recipient chooses, then that is what you, as the giver, should be pleased to have brought about from your gift, not only in the aid to a charity of £200 from the auction, half what you paid as it happened, but in making the recipient happy in being able to do what she did. Or even, then, sad to have done what she did, that being a part of her life she feels, to her, is "learning". Whatever.

    At the end of the day, the monetary value of the dress is bound up in the gift, and if Carrie can get the money legally - 14 day no reason return, for example, that's her license, and she would probably not be wrong to assume her friend wouldn't be thinking of the best for her unless her friend realised the need for money was much greater, and a much greater gift. It's rare that friends give each other cash. It's a bit too embarrassing for people to give cash in 2 ways (if it hasn't been discussed or asked for). It's suggesting the other person needs it while you happen just to have it, and from the other direction, it's embarassing to present yourself as someone who can't ascertain the proper worth of a selected present. And here I note, of course, this very much does exist, but, again, it is always secondary to the legal definition of a gift. If you love someone or really respect them, you will respect fully their absolute right to make their own decisions, not only generally, but in terms of their property that you have given to them (don't forget also that NO gift NEEDS to be accepted), or what is the point of giving to them when all you value is, not them, but your own gift and your own imagination of what you fantasise life should be like?

    At the end of the day, anyone giving a gift is likely to be, and ought to be, at least quite aware if they are giving something of equivalent currency value. For gift giving on earth only exists on earth, and, for example a gold ring can't be given on earth yet in some fantasy land that is not on earth - that's not here. Gold exists on earth, not in a fantasy land which we wish was on earth instead.

    What you certainly can't give, for 3 examples (to finish) is the actual liking of a gift you find you feel you really want the recipient to like by the recipient, nor the keeping of any gift item for whatever reason, nor the feeling by the recipient that he or she can include a gift item into their lives - it may easily seem to a gift recipient (and seem forever) that a gift, though well liked, simply is just not going to slot in to the recipient's life, even however much they would like it to. For being an earthly citizen (citizen of earth is a good term, as it implies, truly, that we are bound up with having to realise lots about the contexts of earth) really means appreciating that we are bound here and nowhere else whilst we are here, and thinking anything else is escapist, childish at first, and then mentally ill if we persevere in wishing to blind ourselves to the reality that we are only earthly citizens when on earth, rather than perhaps space knights or whatever we falsely imagine we are.
    So should she return it or not:confused:
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards