[Cascade]

So person A makes a promise to person B that requires some action from person B after which person A will do something for person B.

Person B goes to considerable length to meet person A's requirements.

Meanwhile person A changes their mind and decides that they don't want to do what they promised.

What are the obligations and reasonable expectations in this sort of situation.

Assume the promise was to do some normal actions that might occur between any two people. Nothing illegal or dreadfully immoral - not killing your first born or sleeping with the bosses wife. So it is just a matter of person A no longer wanting to do what had been promised (agreed).

[1eyedjack]

You head it up as an ethical dilemma but perhaps depending on the jurisdiction and detailed facts it could be a legal one, as they may have entered into an enforceable contract, ie if there was an intent to create legal relations, there was an offer and acceptance, and if there was consideration passing (including in money's worth if not in actual money).

In which case go for option 2, then failing that option 1 (you could go for the throat directly at option 1, but option 2 would remain available and probably the practical first choice).

If there is no legal contract, then go for option 2, then failing that legally option 3 but ethically option 1.

I guess. This is not legal advice.

[PhantomSac]

lol

[Al_U_Card]

B either "man's up" and does it anyway, or asks A how they would prefer to receive their "compensation", ready to comply as best they can.
The saying: "Don't make promises that you can't (or won't) keep." comes to mind.

[kenberg]

I start with "If you agree to do something, you should then do it". For me, the fact that this was in return for an effort by the other person compounds the offense, but the primary offense is saying that you will do something that you then don't do..

Yes a person can change his mind. But he then owes the other both an explanation and a statement of regret.

I think that it matters just what the agreement is. You explain that it is not "Strangers on a Train", an old Hitchcock film about an agreement (well, more like a presumed agreement) between two men to kill each other's wives. But is it the sort of thing where the guy backing out might well have regrets about the propriety of what he has agreed to do? This would be more understandable than backing out of an agreement such as "You help be dig and plant the gardent then I will help you paint the house".

Another way to put it: We all fall short of what we would like to be, but we need to recognize that this indeed would be a failure.

[nullve]

http://plato.stanfor...tries/promises/

And, of course:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

[hrothgar]

If your word's not worth anything, you're not worth anything.

[nullve]

hrothgar, on 2015-December-30, 08:22, said:

If your word's not worth anything, you're not worth anything.

East

xxx
Qxxxx
Txxx
x

Bidding:

1♣-1♥
2♠¹⁾-?

1) GF by agreement

See also http://www.bridgebas...se-gameforcing/

[billw55]

So what is the dilemma?

[Trinidad]

What you should do depends on whether you're person A or person B.

Person A:
Deliver on your promise, whether you like it or not. A promise is meant to be kept, if you don't keep it, you are a a jerk. If it is not possible to keep your promise, you owe person B compensation for his efforts + some bonus.

Person B:
Forget about the promise. Put person B on your list of people who can't be trusted. That doesn't mean that person B can't be a friend to do fun stuff with. But it does mean that you don't give him your wallet.

To me a promise is sacred. As a consequence, I rarely make promises.

Rik

[barmar]

While a person should try to fulfill their promises, reasonable people should also be willing to make accomodations when necessary. So I don't see what's so wrong with option B, try to negotiate some other resolution. Of course, if you can't find a compromise, you should then go back to trying to fulfill your original promise.

People mess up sometimes, that's a fact of life. But if you make a habit of it, you'll get a reputation as being untrustworthy, and people will stop doing favors for you if they don't think you'll reciprocate.

[Zelandakh]

From a legal point of view there is no difference between a verbal contract and a written one, the problem is in proving the details are as person B claims. If person A disputes the agreement and person B cannot prove it then person A is out of luck. If person A agrees that the details were as claimed and person B takes it further then they are liable to damages, including recompense for the time and expense taken by person B. In practice, trying to work out a compromise is the easiest solution and probably the only way of saving the (presumed) friendship.

[mike777]

billw55, on 2015-December-30, 08:42, said:

So what is the dilemma?

ditto

what is the ethical dilemma?

There may be a dilemma over the friendship or future relationship but ethical dilemma?

[nige1]

Cascade, on 2015-December-30, 02:18, said:

So person A makes a promise to person B that requires some action from person B after which person A will do something for person B.
Person B goes to considerable length to meet person A's requirements.
Meanwhile person A changes their mind and decides that they don't want to do what they promised.
What are the obligations and reasonable expectations in this sort of situation.
Assume the promise was to do some normal actions that might occur between any two people. Nothing illegal or dreadfully immoral - not killing your first born or sleeping with the bosses wife. So it is just a matter of person A no longer wanting to do what had been promised (agreed).

Shakespeare's Portia, in The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene 1 said:

The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'T is mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown:
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea;
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.

[ggwhiz]

Level of harm matters, ie. I do something for you and you will treat you to a dinner and when the check comes you pay only 1/2 and I could/wouldn't otherwise afford it. Happened to me and I learned how to make soup out of ketchup for a week.

You are dead to me.

Varying degrees of hurt bring me at least to the edge of the same thing and I agree that it is not an ethical dilemma. A promise is just that.

[Cascade]

billw55, on 2015-December-30, 08:42, said:

So what is the dilemma?

I used "dilemma" because person A thought the third (bottom) option that no one here has chosen whilst person B thought either of the first two would be appropriate. Although if there was negotiation person A seems to be in a weaker position.

Person A in this situation certainly thought there was a dilemma. Person A claimed it was a hard decision to choose the third option.

[blackshoe]

I chose option A because if I were the person involved I would see no other option. But in reality, a person might make a promise and then fail to keep it, for whatever reason. He should expect to lose at least a friendship if he does so, though.

As for bidding agreements, those are not promises to anyone. You do take the chance, if you violate your agreements regularly, of losing that partner.

In nullve's example, in the unlikely event that I psyched — and it does look like a psych to me — 1♥ with that hand, after partner's GF jump shift, I would raise his second suit to game, and apologize when I put the dummy down.

[kenberg]

Cascade, on 2015-December-30, 22:48, said:

I used "dilemma" because person A thought the third (bottom) option that no one here has chosen whilst person B thought either of the first two would be appropriate. Although if there was negotiation person A seems to be in a weaker position.

Person A in this situation certainly thought there was a dilemma. Person A claimed it was a hard decision to choose the third option.

I gave an opinion but I did not cast a vote. My reasoning:

Of course the third option is correct. Person A is in control. Person B has done as he said he would do, person A can now do as he said he would do or he can say screw you, I'm not doing it. If I were person B I would not be listening very carefully to person A's recital of how difficult a decision this was for him.


You say that it involved " Nothing illegal or dreadfully immoral". "not dreadfully immoral" may depend a bit on the person doing the dreading. If this is something where A now feels that what he agreed to do is simply not an action that he can take then he made a serious error by ever agreeing to it in the first place but possibly A and B can work their way through this. Maybe A agreed to introduce B to his sister and has, after getting to know B a little better, had second thoughts about this.

It's hard to say in the abstract. Generally, it seems it is time for A and B to go their separate ways.

[y66]

PhantomSac, on 2015-December-30, 04:18, said:

lol

If people can't get empathetic, thoughtful feedback here in the water cooler, why even have the internet?

[hrothgar]

nullve, on 2015-December-30, 08:37, said:

East

xxx
Qxxxx
Txxx
x

Bidding:

1♣-1♥
2♠¹⁾-?

1) GF by agreement

See also http://www.bridgebas...se-gameforcing/

Just to be clear, there is a big difference between appropriate behavior in a game and in real life.
There are any number of games (Diplomacy, Illuminati, Cosmic Encounters being classic examples) in which "breaking one's word" is expected behavior.
The rules almost demand it.

I would argue that bridge falls in such a category.

The conditions of contest require that one does one's best to win events.
At times, this mandates making a false card.

I don't consider any of this remotely germane to behavior in real life.