WIBTA if I spent the money meant to pay someone who did a job for me?

Sometimes the strangest moral dilemmas aren’t about refusing to pay someone — but about trying to. In this unusual Reddit story, a 70-year-old woman hired a man named Jason to build a new chicken coop in her backyard. He completed the job efficiently, worked through brutal summer heat, and then… disappeared before ever naming his price.

Months passed. She texted him seven times, called twice, and even asked the lawn guy who referred him to help track him down. Nothing. Now she’s left holding the money she fully intended to pay him — unsure whether she would be wrong to spend it if he never resurfaces. Is this a case of generosity gone quiet, a misunderstanding, or something more complicated?

‘WIBTA if I spent the money meant to pay someone who did a job for me?’

How the job began through an unexpected referral:

The completed job and the unanswered question:

From an ethical standpoint, this situation revolves around intent and reasonable effort. The homeowner clearly expected to pay and repeatedly attempted to do so. That demonstrates good faith. However, informal agreements without written contracts can create gray areas — especially in service work.

One commenter raised the legal doctrine of quantum meruit, which allows compensation for services rendered even when no price was agreed upon, provided payment was expected. In practical terms, that means Jason could theoretically claim reasonable compensation later.

Morally, though, the central question becomes: how long is someone obligated to hold funds for an unclaimed debt? Most ethical frameworks would suggest that if she has made multiple sincere attempts to contact him, setting aside money for a reasonable period — such as a year — would reflect fairness without burdening herself indefinitely.

Ultimately, this appears less like avoidance and more like a case of generosity possibly meeting generosity. The uncertainty is uncomfortable — but it is not malicious.

Here’s what Redditors had to say:

Redditors were surprisingly charmed by the situation, offering humor, legal insight, and practical advice.

Many users reassured her that she had already done enough to act in good faith:

Others suggested practical safeguards to balance fairness and caution:

One commenter with legal expertise offered a more technical caution:

And some responses simply added warmth — and a little humor:

This story highlights how rare — and refreshing — it is to see someone worried about paying a debt rather than avoiding one. The homeowner made repeated, documented efforts to compensate Jason, demonstrating clear integrity.

While informal agreements can create uncertainty, ethical responsibility often lies in intention and reasonable effort. In this case, she ultimately did exactly what felt right: she kept trying until she found a way to pay him.