One kid loses another's toy - should he pay? - Page 3

[Storm Bride]

OP: I have to ask - completely OT - did you choose the names for the Hardy Boys, or was it a coincidence? It's been niggling at me.

[zinemama]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

OP: I have to ask - completely OT - did you choose the names for the Hardy Boys, or was it a coincidence? It's been niggling at me.

Oh, totally the Hardy Boys. "Frank" listens to those books on tape all the time while building his legos.

[2xy]

Originally Posted by rootzdawta

Yes, I don't like the agreement that was made. I think if you let someone play with something of yours or you lend it to them, you do so without strings attached, with the understanding that it could get lost, broken, or you've never see it again. If you're not willing to take that risk, don't lend out your stuff. It's nice gesture if a friend replaces something he broke but not a mandate.

Depending upon what the item is, a broken-and-not-replaced item might be a friendship killer for me. I can't tell you how many times I've lent out my carpet cleaner to friends. Luckily, everyone has taken proper care of it and it's not been broken.

I let a casual friend borrow an entire math curriculum for her son (we weren't using it that year, but would need it in the future), and she gave it away when she was done because she couldn't remember who she got it from! That sort of thing really colors my view of a person. If I'm kind enough to lend something, I expect the borrower to be responsible enough to return it to me. Unfortunately, too many people have the "oh, well....it's not a mandate that I replace it" attitude. I think that lending IS risky only because a lot of people are just plain careless.

[Mrs. Bratton]

Originally Posted by rootzdawta

Yes, I don't like the agreement that was made. I think if you let someone play with something of yours or you lend it to them, you do so without strings attached, with the understanding that it could get lost, broken, or you've never see it again. If you're not willing to take that risk, don't lend out your stuff. It's nice gesture if a friend replaces something he broke but not a mandate.

However, I'd also like to teach my kids to honor their word. So if it were my child that made the agreement, I'd like to see him keep his word.

Thats ridiculous and a big assumption. Who says I lend something out without strings attached? Especially if I specifically state ahead of time that "you can only use this item if you are willing to replace it in the case of an accident". Some things I am just not able to cut my losses on. In most cases I probably wouldn't lend those things out but if a friend were really in need of that item I might do them the favor with the clear understanding that they take responsibility if something happened.

I guess what I am saying is in some cases you may loan things out w/ no strings attached, except when you dont, lol. In this case the kid specifically didn't.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by Mrs. Bratton

Thats ridiculous and a big assumption. Who says I lend something out without strings attached? Especially if I specifically state ahead of time that "you can only use this item if you are willing to replace it in the case of an accident". Some things I am just not able to cut my losses on. In most cases I probably wouldn't lend those things out but if a friend were really in need of that item I might do them the favor with the clear understanding that they take responsibility if something happened.

I guess what I am saying is in some cases you may loan things out w/ no strings attached, except when you dont, lol. In this case the kid specifically didn't.

That's what I'm thinking. I know someone who often loans things with no strings attached, but is some cases she does get the other persons agreement to replace the object if it is lost or stolen. Mainly DVDs, she still loans them out because she loves sharing good entertainment with people. There are some that don't get loaned out simply because she either likes them too much or knows that it would be near impossible to replace them.

That being said, while I don't think it is right to expect someone to take responsibility for ruining the item in question (because we all know at least one person who will refuse to do that no matter what) I do think it is very much right to expect ourselves and in extension our children to take responsibility for fixing, replacing or paying for a borrowed item that gets lost stolen or broken. The more someone has a later expectation, the less someone else will want or ask for the former expectation when lending to that person.

So yeah, I'm big on personal responsibility and for that reason, if I were Joe's parents I would be thrilled to learn he wanted to uphold his end of the bargain and support him in the matter.

[mamazee]

The reason I don't like the argument isn't because I don't think Joe should replace it, it's because I don't think Frank should have loaned out something that had such a high probability of being lost or broken in the first place, due to the fragility of it and the cost to replace. If there's a 50% or better chance the person is actually going to have to replace it, then it's too risky to loan out IMO. Joe should have just watched. But since things went as they did, Joe should absolutely have replaced it.

[Kidzaplenty]

I don't really agree with them sticking by the deal for several reasons. One, I don't think most children at the age of 7 are really cognizant of the real value of money or have a complete understanding of verbal contracts. Not that some don't, but I can't imagine my young son completely understanding this "agreement". All I can see (using my son as an example) is a boy wanting to play with another boy's toy and agreeing to anything to do it.

I am also one to teach my children never to loan something out if you are not willing to lose it.

I also don't think a fragile toy like that should be owned by such a young child without the express understanding that it is fragile and will break or be lost easily and quickly.

Anyways. That is just from my perspective.

I would not have allowed my son, "Frank", to buy it.
I would not have allowed my son, "Frank", if he had bought it, to share it. (Too fragile)
I would not have allowed my son, "Joe", to make such an agreement.
I would not have allowed my son, "Joe", to take money that he should never have promised and pay for it.
I would not be angry at "Joe's" parents for not allowing him to pay $30 for a lost toy.
I would not buy another fragile toy for my son, "Frank". I would likely replace such a toy with a more durable alternative, though, out of my own money.

I want my children to honor their word. And I want my children to understand the value of money. But, I know that young children do not comprehend all the various aspects of money and agreements. So I would attempt to teach my son what went wrong, why it went wrong, and how we could alter our circumstances to achieve a different outcome the next time.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by zinemama

Oh, totally the Hardy Boys. "Frank" listens to those books on tape all the time while building his legos.

I loved the Hardy Boys when I was kid.