Breaking your agreements. Honest?

[UtahDan]

Art's honesty thread has me thinking of this but it is sufficiently different that I thought I would put it somewhere else.

The question is, is it honest to break your agreements? We enter into all kinds of contracts in life for a variety of things. The theory of the law of contracts is that sometimes it is rational to break them when the reward outweighs the penalty for the breach. So for example, I might decide to walk away from my mortgage even though I can pay it because I know that the tax hit I will take when the bank forgives the deficiency after foreclosure is less than the cost of staying in a high interest loan I will never pay off. Completely rational, but honest?

The law doesn't look at it as honest or dishonest, but as LDS do we? Is it wrong to walk away from a mortgage? How about to declare bankruptcy? How about not paying back a personal loan from a friend because we know our lender won't ever sue us? The last one seems like something none of is would ever do, but what is the difference between that and the first two? Is it just the fact that the victim is not faceless?

What do people think?

[DU Ute]

Art's honesty thread has me thinking of this but it is sufficiently different that I thought I would put it somewhere else.

The question is, is it honest to break your agreements? We enter into all kinds of contracts in life for a variety of things. The theory of the law of contracts is that sometimes it is rational to break them when the reward outweighs the penalty for the breach. So for example, I might decide to walk away from my mortgage even though I can pay it because I know that the tax hit I will take when the bank forgives the deficiency after foreclosure is less than the cost of staying in a high interest loan I will never pay off. Completely rational, but honest?

The law doesn't look at it as honest or dishonest, but as LDS do we? Is it wrong to walk away from a mortgage? How about to declare bankruptcy? How about not paying back a personal loan from a friend because we know our lender won't ever sue us? The last one seems like something none of is would ever do, but what is the difference between that and the first two? Is it just the fact that the victim is not faceless?

What do people think?

I think filing bankruptcy or defaulting on a mortgage are not inherently dishonest, but there are people I would consider dishonest for doing so.

[Commando]

I think filing bankruptcy or defaulting on a mortgage are not inherently dishonest, but there are people I would consider dishonest for doing so.

This.


Also, I know that the the bank is a business that has no problem bending you over when it suits them, so I think breaching the K in furtherance of your own business interests is fine.

[falafel]

This.


Also, I know that the the bank is a business that has no problem bending you over when it suits them, so I think breaching the K in furtherance of your own business interests is fine.

I share this opinion. My wife, however, definitely doesn't. I hope we are never in the position to choose between the two options.

[Slim]

When I first started at BYU I applied to a number of different on-campus jobs. I got hired pretty quickly onto one that was on-call only so I couldn't count on any guaranteed work. I went to one day of training and that evening I got a call that I'd landed a different on-campus job that I had interviewed for that would pay me 50 cents more an hour and guarantee me 20 hours a week.

I was putting myself through school and really needed a sure thing so I told the first employer I was really sorry but I was going to have to accept the other job. He gave me a huge guilt trip (which at the time I felt I deserved) and told me it was a shame you couldn't count on people to "live up to their word" anymore or something like that.

Anyway the job I ended up going with was the best job I've ever had and ended up being an ideal situation for me. I worked there for five years and though I always felt bad about breaking the agreement with the first job I'm glad that I did.

[statman]

I think there are many in the LDS community that equate legality of business dealings with morality - that view a business that they own that goes under and screws people out of money as completely and totally separate from them screwing people out of money.

In many cases I completely disagree with them. Many business arrangements that people set up are inherently dishonest - they shift the business risk to investors who are reassured that they bear little risk, and then when the business goes under, they get a "sorry about that. No hard feelings. I'll see you at church," from the guy who screwed them out of their money. It happens too much in our little community...

[cowboy]

Honesty is a complex concept. None of us are honest, when it gets down to it. We're only honest up to the point that the consequences of the alternative are less painful. Desperate people do desperate things, and it is our charge as we strive to become Christlike to increase our pain threshhold. We need to be willing to take a lot of pain that may come with the honest decision before we are willing to buckle and make the dishonest choice. This starts with the realization that honesty involves more than just telling the truth.

I've often said the legal doesn't mean right. We have a tendency to ease our conscience with the rationalization that something is legal, so it must be okay. I don't know if the problem is better or worse with Mormons, but it certainly appears to be a problem. My mother's brother taught me a valuable lesson with his example in this respect.

In 1980, he was a contracter in Bountiful, had several homes going in the canyon, and was making bank. He took on a job as a sub remodeling a shopping center. Interest rates skyrocketed, and the general went under. This left my uncle holding the bag for $400,00 worth of work and no way to pay his vendors the $250,000 he owed them. He decided not to declare bankruptcy, and told each of them that he would pay them. He took a job with HUD in Reno, then transferred to Tempe, and 15 years later he had repaid every dime.

I'm not saying that I would make the same decision as my uncle, but I'd like to think I would, and he set a good example for me to follow.

[marsupial]

When I first started at BYU I applied to a number of different on-campus jobs. I got hired pretty quickly onto one that was on-call only so I couldn't count on any guaranteed work. I went to one day of training and that evening I got a call that I'd landed a different on-campus job that I had interviewed for that would pay me 50 cents more an hour and guarantee me 20 hours a week.

I was putting myself through school and really needed a sure thing so I told the first employer I was really sorry but I was going to have to accept the other job. He gave me a huge guilt trip (which at the time I felt I deserved) and told me it was a shame you couldn't count on people to "live up to their word" anymore or something like that.

Anyway the job I ended up going with was the best job I've ever had and ended up being an ideal situation for me. I worked there for five years and though I always felt bad about breaking the agreement with the first job I'm glad that I did.

What a waste of guilt. That same employer could have cut you loose at any time and left you hanging and probably wouldn't have even flinched. I wouldn't worry about it anymore.

[UtahDan]

Honesty is a complex concept. None of us are honest, when it gets down to it. We're only honest up to the point that the consequences of the alternative are less painful. Desperate people do desperate things, and it is our charge as we strive to become Christlike to increase our pain threshhold. We need to be willing to take a lot of pain that may come with the honest decision before we are willing to buckle and make the dishonest choice. This starts with the realization that honesty involves more than just telling the truth.

I've often said the legal doesn't mean right. We have a tendency to ease our conscience with the rationalization that something is legal, so it must be okay. I don't know if the problem is better or worse with Mormons, but it certainly appears to be a problem. My mother's brother taught me a valuable lesson with his example in this respect.

In 1980, he was a contracter in Bountiful, had several homes going in the canyon, and was making bank. He took on a job as a sub remodeling a shopping center. Interest rates skyrocketed, and the general went under. This left my uncle holding the bag for $400,00 worth of work and no way to pay his vendors the $250,000 he owed them. He decided not to declare bankruptcy, and told each of them that he would pay them. He took a job with HUD in Reno, then transferred to Tempe, and 15 years later he had repaid every dime.

I'm not saying that I would make the same decision as my uncle, but I'd like to think I would, and he set a good example for me to follow.

There is an old saw that says "the law often permits what honor forbids." And yet, the law should be at least an approximation of of what society is ready to accept. What about the other side of the equation, though. If you break your contract with me and I am out $100,000, is it immoral for me to get a judgment and take from you your car, your house, your wages and your nice watch? And brining it back to LDS culture, are we more likely to condemn someone who screws us in a business deal or someone who won't turn the other cheek and chases the debt?

I know an awful lot of LDS who would never, ever sue. It just goes against the grain of who they are. Not just LDS of course. Some folks are just that way. I can tell you right now that if anyone ever costs me $100,000 they should just go ahead and declare bankruptcy because I will make a hobby out of chasing it indefinitely. Is that morally defective?

[Commando]

When I first started at BYU I applied to a number of different on-campus jobs. I got hired pretty quickly onto one that was on-call only so I couldn't count on any guaranteed work. I went to one day of training and that evening I got a call that I'd landed a different on-campus job that I had interviewed for that would pay me 50 cents more an hour and guarantee me 20 hours a week.

I was putting myself through school and really needed a sure thing so I told the first employer I was really sorry but I was going to have to accept the other job. He gave me a huge guilt trip (which at the time I felt I deserved) and told me it was a shame you couldn't count on people to "live up to their word" anymore or something like that.

Anyway the job I ended up going with was the best job I've ever had and ended up being an ideal situation for me. I worked there for five years and though I always felt bad about breaking the agreement with the first job I'm glad that I did.

I'd like to lay into this clown. It's not like he was doing a personal solid by hiring you. You put in the application and they hired you because they were interested in paying someone with your qualifications to perform the job description to further their business plan. A simple "piss off" would have worked wonders here. I hate when employers don't understand personal autonomy and the opportunity cost and risk of hiring someone.

[cowboy]

There is an old saw that says "the law often permits what honor forbids." And yet, the law should be at least an approximation of of what society is ready to accept. What about the other side of the equation, though. If you break your contract with me and I am out $100,000, is it immoral for me to get a judgment and take from you your car, your house, your wages and your nice watch? And brining it back to LDS culture, are we more likely to condemn someone who screws us in a business deal or someone who won't turn the other cheek and chases the debt?

I know an awful lot of LDS who would never, ever sue. It just goes against the grain of who they are. Not just LDS of course. Some folks are just that way. I can tell you right now that if anyone ever costs me $100,000 they should just go ahead and declare bankruptcy because I will make a hobby out of chasing it indefinitely. Is that morally defective?

I can't think of a circumstance in which it is immoral or dishonest to insist on being paid as agreed upon. It may not be kind or charitable, but that's another thread. Now if you use the default as an excuse to get more than you had coming, you might be wandering into dishonest territory ala banks in the 80's who foreclosed on farms with equity and then used closing costs, liquidation costs and penalties to seize that equity because they needed to shore up their own balance sheets.

[chrisrenrut]

Also, I know that the the bank is a business that has no problem bending you over when it suits them, so I think breaching the K in furtherance of your own business interests is fine.

I'm curious, how can a bank "bend you over" with anything outside of the agreements in the contract you and they have signed? When does a bank "breach the K in furtherance" of their own business interest?

Full disclosure: I work for a bank, and am very familiar with the terms and conditions that are included in many of the consumer agreements they sign. And I am in a position where I frequently interact with customers when there are disputes that come down to how the agreement reads. I can't speak for all banks everywhere, but I always compensate customers when a situation falls on the customer's side of the agreement. Last week, I reimbursed one customer with over $1250.00 and another with over $400.00 in finance charges they had been charged by other companies because the payments weren't received in time as agreed upon in the terms and conditions of our product.

Even when customers have situations falls on the bank's side of the agreement, we frequently provide all or part of their request out of courtesy or goodwill. Usually this happens if they have been good customers in the past and we don't want to damage the relationship over fine points of the terms and conditions.

[il Padrino Ute]

Would it be dishonest if, for example a guy named boatrapper'96 gave his word that he would change allegiance and become a fan of the team that a guy name mdsunk cheered for if mdsunk someday went to the temple for his endowments?

This is, of course, just a hypothetical.

[Mrs. Funk]

My dad, a dermatologist, signed on a new doctor (LDS guy) fresh out of residency for a two-year contract (with a tacit understanding that the new doc would be staying around). Six months into the contract, new doc told my dad that he'd been accepted for a Mohs fellowship and that he would be leaving the practice in June.

Besides being in my opinion a stupid choice (the contract was for $300k plus a very generous benefits package and periodic bonuses, etc.; dermatologists CAN and DO perform Mohs on a routine basis without a special fellowship), it's further complicated by a statement this doctor made earlier into his contract. He'd mentioned the possibility of doing a fellowship, but said that "as a matter of personal integrity, I will fulfill the two-year obligation."

My dad feels, and I think understandably, betrayed. He feels the guy lied to him and never intended to fulfill his contract. The contract has a conditional thirty-day out clause for either side (with thirty days notice, the contract can be cancelled on either side) and the new doctor seems to be relying on this as his rationale that it's okay for him to be leaving. He appears to be saying, "I'm informing you that I intend to exercise my thirty-day out in six months' time." This isn't exactly how the "out" clause was meant to work.

In short, I don't think this guy was particularly honest, but he appears to see nothing wrong with it. He's a temple-recommend holding father of soon to be six kids.

Food for thought.

[falafel]

My dad, a dermatologist, signed on a new doctor (LDS guy) fresh out of residency for a two-year contract (with a tacit understanding that the new doc would be staying around). Six months into the contract, new doc told my dad that he'd been accepted for a Mohs fellowship and that he would be leaving the practice in June.

Besides being in my opinion a stupid choice (the contract was for $300k plus a very generous benefits package and periodic bonuses, etc.; dermatologists CAN and DO perform Mohs on a routine basis without a special fellowship), it's further complicated by a statement this doctor made earlier into his contract. He'd mentioned the possibility of doing a fellowship, but said that "as a matter of personal integrity, I will fulfill the two-year obligation."

My dad feels, and I think understandably, betrayed. He feels the guy lied to him and never intended to fulfill his contract. The contract has a conditional thirty-day out clause for either side (with thirty days notice, the contract can be cancelled on either side) and the new doctor seems to be relying on this as his rationale that it's okay for him to be leaving. He appears to be saying, "I'm informing you that I intend to exercise my thirty-day out in six months' time." This isn't exactly how the "out" clause was meant to work.

In short, I don't think this guy was particularly honest, but he appears to see nothing wrong with it. He's a temple-recommend holding father of soon to be six kids.

Food for thought.

That seems like a tough situation for your dad, so I want to tread lightly. I'm wondering, however, what your dad's understanding of the 30-day out clause was? Seems like the presence of the clause itself might have been enough to put your dad on notice that this guy might not stick around. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're saying?