5 removed "assumptions"
source | link

You can't answer any interpersonal question without understanding how the other person may receive it, so let'sLet's first try and see if from your friend's point of view:.

The original agreement you made was notnot for you to assume ownership of the records. You offered to assist with the storage of his records, and you did that for 2 years without question. During that time there was no question that he owned the records.

So 2 years into the original agreement you were happy forasked him to "take care" of the records which presumably could have included taking them back. Again, at this point you still understood and accepted that they belonged to him despite the fact you had stored them for 2 years without question or charge.

He wantedSo his initial request was to have easy access to the records so he could make recordings of them, but somehow during your "negotiation" of this,after negotiation you eventually agreed that he backed down on his request by acceptingwould only get much more limitedlimited access to the records on your termsat times convenient to you AND only if you took ownership of them. You may have reached a verbal agreement, but it is pretty clear he got a bad deal and likely only backed down because he had no choice as he had no way of storing the records.

I'm only guessing atIt would be very easy to side with you on this, but an explanation - you appear to have been very generous in your original offer to store these records for free; your request that his sudden change in position where he wants not onlycoming and going to get the records back butdoesn't cause disruption also anything else that may have once belonged to him is thatseems reasonable, and he has talked your more recentdoes appear to be going back on a verbal agreement over with other friends and they've told him what I am telling. But it does seem that you now - he got ripped offa very good deal out of this while your friend lost out.

I don't believe you can avoid a fight - not if you both take up a contrary position on the validity of this second agreement. Giving you some suggested words to state your position won't really help as your friend clearly has a contrary position. He already disagrees with you.

Your onlybest chance is to highlight the second agreement you made and hope that as a friend he is prepared to honour that. The likelihood is that he knows very well what you spoke about and has come to consider it unfair. You are going to have to talk this over, whether that constitutes a reasonable discussion or a "fight" will depend on how you both approach it.

You can't answer any interpersonal question without understanding how the other person may receive it, so let's first try and see if from your friend's point of view:

The original agreement you made was not for you to assume ownership of the records. You offered to assist with the storage of his records, and you did that for 2 years without question. During that time there was no question that he owned the records.

So 2 years into the original agreement you were happy for him to "take care" of the records which presumably could have included taking them back. Again, at this point you still understood and accepted that they belonged to him despite the fact you had stored them for 2 years without question or charge.

He wanted easy access to make recordings of them, but somehow during your "negotiation" of this, he backed down on his request by accepting much more limited access to the records on your terms AND only if you took ownership of them. You may have reached a verbal agreement, but it is pretty clear he got a bad deal and likely only backed down because he had no choice as he had no way of storing the records.

I'm only guessing at this, but an explanation for his sudden change in position where he wants not only the records back but also anything else that may have once belonged to him is that he has talked your more recent agreement over with other friends and they've told him what I am telling you now - he got ripped off.

I don't believe you can avoid a fight. Giving you some suggested words to state your position won't really help as your friend clearly has a contrary position. He already disagrees with you.

Your only chance is to highlight the second agreement you made and hope that as a friend he is prepared to honour that. The likelihood is that he knows very well what you spoke about and has come to consider it unfair. You are going to have to talk this over, whether that constitutes a reasonable discussion or a "fight" will depend on how you both approach it.

Let's first try and see if from your friend's point of view.

The original agreement you made was not for you to assume ownership of the records. You offered to assist with the storage of his records, and you did that for 2 years without question. During that time there was no question that he owned the records.

So 2 years into the original agreement you asked him to "take care" of the records which presumably could have included taking them back. Again, at this point you still understood and accepted that they belonged to him despite the fact you had stored them for 2 years without question or charge.

So his initial request was to have easy access to the records so he could make recordings of them, but after negotiation you eventually agreed that he would only get much more limited access to the records at times convenient to you AND only if you took ownership of them.

It would be very easy to side with you on this - you appear to have been very generous in your original offer to store these records for free; your request that his coming and going to get the records doesn't cause disruption also seems reasonable, and he does appear to be going back on a verbal agreement. But it does seem that you got a very good deal out of this while your friend lost out.

I don't believe you can avoid a fight - not if you both take up a contrary position on the validity of this second agreement. Giving you some suggested words to state your position won't really help as your friend clearly has a contrary position. He already disagrees with you.

Your best chance is to highlight the second agreement you made and hope that as a friend he is prepared to honour that. The likelihood is that he knows very well what you spoke about and has come to consider it unfair. You are going to have to talk this over, whether that constitutes a reasonable discussion or a "fight" will depend on how you both approach it.

4 fixed incorrect details
source | link

The original agreement you made was not for you to assume ownership of the records. You offered to assist with the storage of his records, and you did that for 52 years without question. AllDuring that while,time there was no question that he owned the records.

5So 2 years into the original agreement you were happy for him to "take care" of the records which presumably could have included taking them back. So after 5 years of you storing the recordsAgain, at this point you still understood and accepted that they belonged to him despite the fact you had stored them for 2 years without question or charge.

I accept that thisthe storage has costbeen something of an inconvenience to you - but really you can't count the cost or effort involved during the first 5 years while you stored them becauseit is difficult for you did agree to it. You can't really argue that the storage over the past 2 yearsitself has cost you anything financially when you agreed to store themdid that for 52 years without costfor free. As far as I can see the only tangible cost to you is some shelving.

Also, you do not mention whether or not your friend has managed to access all of his records over the last 25 years since this secondary agreement. If he hasn't, then arguably you have not kept your side of it. Did you include in your agreement a "reasonable" amount of time for him to complete the task? TwoFive years is a longought to have been plenty of time, and I think he has good grounds to say thatas your ownership hinged on his getting reasonable access to these records which, if he hasn't had that then arguably the agreement is void.

The original agreement you made was not for you to assume ownership of the records. You offered to assist with the storage of his records, and you did that for 5 years without question. All that while, he owned the records.

5 years into the original agreement you were happy for him to "take care" of the records which presumably could have included taking them back. So after 5 years of you storing the records, you still understood and accepted that they belonged to him.

I accept that this has cost you - but really you can't count the cost or effort involved during the first 5 years while you stored them because you did agree to it. You can't really argue that the storage over the past 2 years has cost you when you agreed to store them for 5 years without cost. As far as I can see the only tangible cost to you is some shelving.

Also, you do not mention whether or not your friend has managed to access all of his records over the last 2 years since this secondary agreement. If he hasn't, then arguably you have not kept your side of it. Did you include in your agreement a "reasonable" amount of time for him to complete the task? Two years is a long time, and I think he has good grounds to say that your ownership hinged on his getting reasonable access to these records which he hasn't had.

The original agreement you made was not for you to assume ownership of the records. You offered to assist with the storage of his records, and you did that for 2 years without question. During that time there was no question that he owned the records.

So 2 years into the original agreement you were happy for him to "take care" of the records which presumably could have included taking them back. Again, at this point you still understood and accepted that they belonged to him despite the fact you had stored them for 2 years without question or charge.

I accept that the storage has been something of an inconvenience to you but it is difficult for you to argue the storage itself has cost you anything financially when you did that for 2 years for free. As far as I can see the only tangible cost to you is some shelving.

Also, you do not mention whether or not your friend has managed to access all of his records over the last 5 years since this secondary agreement. If he hasn't, then arguably you have not kept your side of it. Did you include in your agreement a "reasonable" amount of time for him to complete the task? Five years ought to have been plenty of time, and as your ownership hinged on his getting reasonable access to these records, if he hasn't had that then arguably the agreement is void.

3 updated to clarify point.
source | link

You can't answer any interpersonal question without understanding how the other person may receive it, so let's first try and see if from your friend's point of view:

"he had to move out of his apartment and could not afford storage for his records, so I jumped to offer my assistance"

The original agreement you made was not for you to assume ownership of the records. You offered to assist with the storage of his records, and you did that for 5 years without question. All that while, he owned the records.

"After about 2 years my girlfriend told me that I have to do something with all those boxes, they're taking up the whole bedroom, so I told him to take care of them."

5 years into the original agreement you were happy for him to "take care" of the records which presumably could have included taking them back. So after 5 years of you storing the records, you still understood and accepted that they belonged to him.

"He wanted to go in and out of the boxes to take records out and record them at my house, but I said no because it would be disruptive to my life and go on and on. We came to an agreement that he could come over and record them from time to time if I could get ownership of them."

He wanted easy access to make recordings of them, but somehow during your "negotiation" of this, he backed down on his request by accepting much more limited access to the records on your terms AND only if you took ownership of them. You may have reached a verbal agreement, but it is pretty clear he got a bad deal and likely only backed down because he had no choice as he had no way of storing the records.

I'm only guessing at this, but an explanation for his sudden change in position where he wants not only the records back but also anything else that may have once belonged to him is that he has talked your more recent agreement over with other friends and they've told him what I am telling you now - he got ripped off.

I accept that this has cost you - but really you can't count the cost or effort involved during the first 5 years while you stored them because you did agree to it. You can't really argue that the storage over the past 2 years has cost you when you agreed to store them for 5 years without cost. As far as I can see the only tangible cost to you is some shelving.

Also, you do not mention whether or not your friend has managed to access all of his records over the last 2 years since this secondary agreement. If he hasn't, then arguably you have not kept your side of it. Did you include in your agreement a "reasonable" amount of time for him to complete the task? Two years is a long time, and I think he has good grounds to say that your ownership hinged on his getting reasonable access to these records which he hasn't had.

Your IPS question is how can I ask him to honor his agreement to not take back the gift he gave me so many years ago without causing a big fight?

I don't believe you can avoid a fight. Giving you some suggested words to state your position won't really help as your friend clearly has a contrary position. He already disagrees with you.

Your only chance is to highlight the second agreement you made and hope that as a friend he is prepared to honour that. The likelihood is that he knows very well what you spoke about and has come to consider it unfair. You are going to have to talk this over, whether that constitutes a reasonable discussion or a "fight" will depend on how you both approach it.

You can't answer any interpersonal question without understanding how the other person may receive it, so let's first try and see if from your friend's point of view:

"he had to move out of his apartment and could not afford storage for his records, so I jumped to offer my assistance"

The original agreement you made was not for you to assume ownership of the records. You offered to assist with the storage of his records, and you did that for 5 years without question. All that while, he owned the records.

"After about 2 years my girlfriend told me that I have to do something with all those boxes, they're taking up the whole bedroom, so I told him to take care of them."

5 years into the original agreement you were happy for him to "take care" of the records which presumably could have included taking them back. So after 5 years of you storing the records, you still understood and accepted that they belonged to him.

"He wanted to go in and out of the boxes to take records out and record them at my house, but I said no because it would be disruptive to my life and go on and on. We came to an agreement that he could come over and record them from time to time if I could get ownership of them."

He wanted easy access to make recordings of them, but somehow during your "negotiation" of this, he backed down on his request by accepting much more limited access to the records on your terms AND only if you took ownership of them. You may have reached a verbal agreement, but it is pretty clear he got a bad deal and likely only backed down because he had no choice as he had no way of storing the records.

I'm only guessing at this, but an explanation for his sudden change in position where he wants not only the records back but also anything else that may have once belonged to him is that he has talked your more recent agreement over with other friends and they've told him what I am telling you now - he got ripped off.

I accept that this has cost you - but really you can't count the cost or effort involved during the first 5 years while you stored them because you did agree to it. You can't really argue that the storage over the past 2 years has cost you when you agreed to store them for 5 years without cost. As far as I can see the only tangible cost to you is some shelving.

Also, you do not mention whether or not your friend has managed to access all of his records over the last 2 years since this secondary agreement. If he hasn't, then arguably you have not kept your side of it. Did you include in your agreement a "reasonable" amount of time for him to complete the task? Two years is a long time, and I think he has good grounds to say that your ownership hinged on his getting reasonable access to these records which he hasn't had.

Your IPS question is how can I ask him to honor his agreement to not take back the gift he gave me so many years ago without causing a big fight?

I don't believe you can. Giving you some suggested words to state your position won't really help as your friend clearly has a contrary position.

Your only chance is to highlight the second agreement you made and hope that he is prepared to honour that. The likelihood is that he knows what you spoke about and has come to consider it unfair. You are going to have to talk this over, whether that constitutes a reasonable discussion or a "fight" will depend on how you both approach it.

You can't answer any interpersonal question without understanding how the other person may receive it, so let's first try and see if from your friend's point of view:

"he had to move out of his apartment and could not afford storage for his records, so I jumped to offer my assistance"

The original agreement you made was not for you to assume ownership of the records. You offered to assist with the storage of his records, and you did that for 5 years without question. All that while, he owned the records.

"After about 2 years my girlfriend told me that I have to do something with all those boxes, they're taking up the whole bedroom, so I told him to take care of them."

5 years into the original agreement you were happy for him to "take care" of the records which presumably could have included taking them back. So after 5 years of you storing the records, you still understood and accepted that they belonged to him.

"He wanted to go in and out of the boxes to take records out and record them at my house, but I said no because it would be disruptive to my life and go on and on. We came to an agreement that he could come over and record them from time to time if I could get ownership of them."

He wanted easy access to make recordings of them, but somehow during your "negotiation" of this, he backed down on his request by accepting much more limited access to the records on your terms AND only if you took ownership of them. You may have reached a verbal agreement, but it is pretty clear he got a bad deal and likely only backed down because he had no choice as he had no way of storing the records.

I'm only guessing at this, but an explanation for his sudden change in position where he wants not only the records back but also anything else that may have once belonged to him is that he has talked your more recent agreement over with other friends and they've told him what I am telling you now - he got ripped off.

I accept that this has cost you - but really you can't count the cost or effort involved during the first 5 years while you stored them because you did agree to it. You can't really argue that the storage over the past 2 years has cost you when you agreed to store them for 5 years without cost. As far as I can see the only tangible cost to you is some shelving.

Also, you do not mention whether or not your friend has managed to access all of his records over the last 2 years since this secondary agreement. If he hasn't, then arguably you have not kept your side of it. Did you include in your agreement a "reasonable" amount of time for him to complete the task? Two years is a long time, and I think he has good grounds to say that your ownership hinged on his getting reasonable access to these records which he hasn't had.

Your IPS question is how can I ask him to honor his agreement to not take back the gift he gave me so many years ago without causing a big fight?

I don't believe you can avoid a fight. Giving you some suggested words to state your position won't really help as your friend clearly has a contrary position. He already disagrees with you.

Your only chance is to highlight the second agreement you made and hope that as a friend he is prepared to honour that. The likelihood is that he knows very well what you spoke about and has come to consider it unfair. You are going to have to talk this over, whether that constitutes a reasonable discussion or a "fight" will depend on how you both approach it.

2 formatting
source | link
1
source | link