"Here's an idea, dear sister, if you don't have the money to pay for a family vacation, don't say you're going to join the family vacation."
How many chances can you give an untrustworthy person before the blame eventually falls on you?
Take the siblings below as an example. As the family was planning a summer vacation together, the sibling in charge of the planning knew that their sister was financially irresponsible and had a tendency to back out at the last minute, which would cause problems with her paying back for the vacation.
As a precaution, the sibling held a family meeting in which they asked every family member to promise they would pay for their portion of the trip, even if they ended up not joining. The irresponsible sister accepted the terms and insisted that there was no way she would back out of coming or not pay her part.
The sibling booked the trip and set up a deadline for everyone to reumburst them.
A few months later, to the surprise of absolutely no one, the sister decided that she could not come on the trip and refused to pay her sibling for her part. It didn't help that she promised them she wouldn't do that, or that they had an agreement; at the end of the day, she didn't have the money and had no intention of giving it up.
Since the sibling saw this coming, it makes one wonder who is actually to blame here. Is it really the irresponsible sister's fault, or is it the sibling's fault for giving her a chance in the first place? Keep scrolling to read the full story to decide.
.png)
3 months ago
39




English (US) ·