![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The modern guru's dilemma
Jul. 6th, 2008 01:59 pmThe Saturday newspaper has a modern etiquette column called "Modern Guru", to which readers can write in with a query. Here is yesterday's question:
I got my husband's sister a $100 gift voucher to a beauty salon for her birthday. But before she could redeem it, the salon closed down. My husband thinks I should get her another voucher as a replacement but I think my responsibility was discharged in the giving of the original present, and what happened after that is irrelevant. Can you please confirm that I am right?
JS, Narrabundah, ACT
To which my answer would be (a) yes, JS, you are right: you've given the gift and it's your sister-in-law's fault that she didn't use the voucher earlier and (b) if your husband is so concerned, let him buy another gift himself.
But the modern guru, after a lengthy "humorous" piece about beauty salons, decided that JS was wrong and therefore owed her sister-in-law another gift.
Admittedly, there is a lot of information not provided that could change the situation: how long the sister-in-law had the voucher, how quickly the salon closed down, and so on. But on the facts given, I say it's the modern guru who is wrong. What do you think?
[Poll #1218512]
I got my husband's sister a $100 gift voucher to a beauty salon for her birthday. But before she could redeem it, the salon closed down. My husband thinks I should get her another voucher as a replacement but I think my responsibility was discharged in the giving of the original present, and what happened after that is irrelevant. Can you please confirm that I am right?
JS, Narrabundah, ACT
To which my answer would be (a) yes, JS, you are right: you've given the gift and it's your sister-in-law's fault that she didn't use the voucher earlier and (b) if your husband is so concerned, let him buy another gift himself.
But the modern guru, after a lengthy "humorous" piece about beauty salons, decided that JS was wrong and therefore owed her sister-in-law another gift.
Admittedly, there is a lot of information not provided that could change the situation: how long the sister-in-law had the voucher, how quickly the salon closed down, and so on. But on the facts given, I say it's the modern guru who is wrong. What do you think?
[Poll #1218512]