Re: A question on honor

[Brian Flynn <bkflynn@email.unc.edu>]

On Tue, 21 Feb 1995, Eric Jon Campbell wrote:
> This is a scenerio that played its self outlast week and left a friend rather
> disturbed as to the proper course of action.  So any advice would be welcome.
> 
> Jon borrows money from Tom to pay for an item.
> Tom finds that he needs the money and Sarah offers to take on Jon's debt to 
> Tom so that Tom can get the money he needs.
> Tom is unsure about the arrangemant and offers to pay off Jon's debt if Jon 
> proves unable or unwilling to pay back the debt.
> Sarah states that since she knows Jon far better than Tom does, and that will 
> not be necissary. Sarah also states that that Tom should not worry about it 
> and that such a promise will not be necessary.
> 
> Two weeks later Sarah approaches Tom and asks for her money back since Jon has 
> not payed her(and she has not asked Jon for the money). 
> Tom protests that that was not the arrangemant and that she had unconitionally
> assumed the debt.
> Sarah states that Tom had essentialy borrowed money from her and now is bound 
> to pay her back.
> When Tom states that that wasn't the agreement, and irregardless he will be 
> unable to pay her back for at least two weeks, Sarah says that Tom has proven 
> that he has no honor.

Even with consideration to the law, I'd have to say Tom is just fine because

1)  Sarah refused his offer, stating that "she knows Jon far better than 
Tom does."
2)  If #1 doesn't hold, then Tom's initial offer was to pay back the 
money if "Jon proves unable or unwilling."  Sarah had not even contacted 
Jon about paying her back.  Until Jon is asked, Tom has no obligation 
under any circumstance.

I won't say who has the lesser honor...that would be dishonorable :)

Uther