Monday, October 30, 2006

Wisdom Please

Dear Church of Christ men,

If you believe you are a wise person, can you please help me with this scenario of conflict?

John owned a new house worth $200,000.00 and he was renting it to a friend (Doug) in the church.

One day Doug asked John if he could buy the house and so John agreed.

Because Doug was new to the country John decided to give him $30,000.00 off of the appraised value.

So the price was set at $170,000.00 and they agreed to the deal.

Because they were friends, John and Doug did not set a specific date for when Doug would need to obtain financing but John was expecting it to be 3 to 6 months at most.

However as time went on, Doug was unable to get financing but John was not concerned because they were good friends and he assumed that Doug would respect that properties do appreciate in value.

But then 1 and ½ years later, (when John and Doug were not as good friends anymore) Doug obtained adequate financing.

However, now the house had been appraised at $270,000.00.

Doug then went to John and insisted that he sell the house to him for $170,000.00.

John felt that the $30,000.00 that he had already given him was a very generous gift, and that Doug should really take into consideration that houses and land appreciate in value.

Doug strongly felt John was in the wrong.

Here are my questions;

1. Is greed involved here?
2. Could they both be greedy?
3. In your opinion which one more, Doug or John?
4. Is it possible for a person to be greedy and not know it?
5. If so, how can God condemn the greedy?
6. In short, how could this situation be resolved?

If you feel you have a clear answer to this situation, could you please email me, but please if possible, don't email me without first sending this to someone else who you feel is wise - you must know someone. I would really like as many replies as possible to obtain a "FAIR" evaluation.

Please reply in the 1. 2. 3. Format

Thank you so much, I really appreciate your help.

Susan.
wisdomplease@shaw.ca
(All names assumed for privacy)

0 comments: