Real life MMD: My ex paid for the hol, should I keep the refund?

Mouseboy007

Oh the irony of:

'Wow, the sheer level of judgment on this thread (all from men) leaves me totally stunned. ' .... which is itself a judgement is it not?



I'm guessing the question was asked as the OP wants to keep the money, but with a clear conscience - i.e. if 99% of people said keep it, she would feel she could do so in clear conscience.

The issue has occurred because of the airline policy and the way it was booked which means that the person who didn't pay for the item is the one given a refund.

It's not really a matter of what each person earns and was a silly admission in my opinion.

I think this has been echoed already, but legally (down to booking T's & C's) it may be that the money does now belong to the OP. However, this is a thread about a moral dilemma and not a legal one. Morally, I would suggest that the money should be returned to the person that booked it.

The long and short is:
Someone has paid for something, someone else is given the refund (potentially legally). Taking aside personal circumstances, in black and white, it's morally wrong to accept someone else's money that they them self have not explicitly gifted you.

For arguments sake, let's use the same circumstances in a different light:

A stranger to you books a holiday. The person in question is a frail old lady that has saved for 5 years and the purpose is to make a final visit to overseas grandchildren who due to her age and their location she will likely never see again. The airline refunds her cancellation but to the wrong person due to a clerical error on the ladies part (she accidentally writes the wrong account number on the paper for a refund and signs it). The old lady, via the airline, writes a message to the unexpected recipient of her refunded money.

The situation above is the same in that LEGALLY it's plausible that by keeping the money you are doing no (legal) wrong, and in fact could argue that you didn't steal from the old lady but took the corporate airline's money because they gave it to you. However, you know that in doing so, the airline will feel no compunction to recompense the old lady who mistakenly filled in paperwork incorrectly as legally the airline has done no wrong and is a business following black and white rules/practices. Therefore you can argue that YOU are not depriving someone of the last opportunity they have to visit a loved one, it is the airline.

However, I would suggest most people would return the money, which wasn't theirs and they only happened upon it due to the way paperwork is managed. I guess it feels easier to justify taking money when you can shift blame/responsibility to a corporate third party.

What I'm trying to highlight is that given the above example, the outcome is the same, but the PERSONAL circumstances are different and yet I would imagine MOST people would feel it was their moral responsibility to return the money to its rightful owner rather than find a legal loophole in which to keep it and a moral standpoint that enables the responsibility to lay elsewhere.

Anyone who suggests the money should be kept is surely trying to leverage the personal circumstances of both parties as a factor when in reality it should have no bearing whatsoever. It's conceivable that the guy booking the trips was doing so on borrowed money or that he only has £100 a month to live on as he charitably donates the remainder and works in a soup kitchen for 5 hours an evening. We just don't know. The point is, circumstances are irrelevant.

sassiemac

This is a matter of honesty and morals. It is HIS money and so the refund should go back to HIM. You should not even be considering keeping the money.

The fact that he earns well and you are employed with children is irrelevant (btw I am an unemployed woman).

hellienellie

No way is that money yours to keep. If you keep it your a thief !:(

Chris055

How can you even ask this question!

malkypaul

Hi All

I agree with Bridle, pay it into an instant high interest account, and then tell him about the refund (if he doesn't already know) and ask where he want's HIS money deposited.
Married Single Unemployed with kids, despite him being a Bl---Y fool with his Money makes no difference it's HIS money.
What's the alternative a criminal record if he want's his revenge!!, do the decent thing!!. Er wasn't i married to you?

rwgray

I am astonished by practically all of the responses to this one! What a moral stonewall from the MSE - complete with ridiculous accusations of "theft".

Firstly, you have to cash the cheque as it is payable to you. Secondly, I never met the guy so I don't know whether he is a solo spendthrift who couldn't give a damn about the money, or a nice guy too polite to bother you for it - or a bit of both! So, when the funds clear, you are going to have to send him a friendly note asking him what you should do with the money.

His response settles the question instantly.

Rich.x

suchgreatheights

Obviously not. This isn't even a dilemma. The money isn't yours and he could quite rightly sue you to get it back.

The fact you are unemployed with children makes no difference - presumably you receive the appropriate state benefits to compensate you in line with your situation.

sweetiepiedave

What a load of priggish, pious and uncharitable sentiments you've elicited you've received from MSE subscribers. The worse ones are those trying to make you feel bad about yourself or ashamed for having asked what is a perfectly reasonable question and one that in the real world many people suffering dire poverty would ask themselves. And as for those that compare you to a prostitute, well I find them plainly disgusting. So take no notice.

First of all, I don't know (do any of your critics really know?) whether your keeping the money would actually be illegal. He's made you the lead passenger, so who does it actually belong to in law? As for the 'moral' arguments of a lot of them, well how many of them have tried being a single mother with kids and living off benefits? How many of them think they could live off £67.50 a week (Jobseekers' Allowance) plus the other pittance that goes by the name of child allowance? Can they imagine living off that? Obviously not. But they should be able to imagine what a fortune £60,000 per annum sounds in comparison. How 'moral' is it that there should be such enormous discrepancies between what people are forced to live off? And then somehow it becomes immoral if those at the bottom don't gracefully accept what fate has delivered to them.

Having said that, since we don't know what your legal position is, all right, go back to your ex and tell him what's happened. If he's got any decency, he'll tell you to keep the money.

Mouseboy007

sweetiepiedave wrote: »

How 'moral' is it that there should be such enormous discrepancies between what people are forced to live off?

I don't think it's necessarily moral that there is such a divide between the haves and have not's, however I don't think that in itself can be a blanket moral justification for keeping money that isn't rightfully yours to keep.

sweetiepiedave wrote: »

If he's got any decency, he'll tell you to keep the money.

For all you know, he could have started a business from scratch, works 15 hours a day and despite the £60'000 'tag' he's been given is intending to use the money back to pay for a dialysis machine in a childrens hospital.

Of course, it's easy to tar people with the brush of having more money than sense and making judgements and assumptions that the money is surplus or not required.

Maybe the £1700 is needed to pay his rent/mortgage or face losing his home, whereas it's likely that the benefits claiming OP is having concessions on her housing arrangements.

Again, it all harks back to 'we don't know'.

Just because someone earns a lot of money does not mean it is anyone's place to judge its use or value to that person or make a decision on what to do with it. Similarly, not all benefits claimants are poorly suffering upstanding citizens.

Judgements are being made left right and centre here.
Circumstances of either party are irrelevant. It's a black and white situation of receiving money at the expense of someone else.

No wonder society is such a mess when so many people piously believe they have the 'right' to take things at the expense of someone else. In principal, is that not what the looters in the riots used as justification for their actions?

redroselass

You need to contact him and give him the option to sort it out. If he chooses to let you keep it then i hope you appreciate what a very lucky girl you are.

You have no choice but to do the right thing!!!!!!!!!