AITA for Not Paying a New Friend After She Backed Out of a Trade Agreement?

Balancing Agreements, Fairness, and Friendship Dynamics

1. The Importance of Clear Agreements

This underscores the need for clarity in any exchange, but particularly those involving money or goods. Here, the trade deals were evident — for a maximum $160 worth of nail art, Kloss dished out $70 in clothes and accessories. The OP even waived the balance, making out like a bandit in the deal for Jane.

It undermines trust and fairness when a few weeks later you back out of the deal. Transpose that informal agreement to a social setting like this, and, as The Journal of Economic Psychology notes, you get social friction and low group cohesion, and voilá—you have this outcome.

---

2. Jane’s Financial Struggles vs. Accountability

As understandable as Jane’s financial situation is, that should have no bearing on his accountability. If she did not want to trade her goods she should have stated that in the first place. To go back on a deal after having benefitted from it is doing a disservice to the other party.

The OP offering to put it off until payday shows she can put herself in someone else’s shoes, but Jane taking it up to TikTok indicates she’s not ready for a adult conflicts, but hey ‘rules don’t apply here darling.

---

3. Group Dynamics and Loyalty

To ask Jane leave the group, was the clearest thing the group of people were going to do to create trust and other-theis-fairness in their social circle. Friendships rest on a foundation of mutual respect, and Jane taking it to the public level and accusing OP of stealing in front of the rest of the friends group probably made the rest of then feel her behavior was disruptive.

Nevertheless, the split in the group indicates that, for some, peacekeeping matters more than principle. That leaves OP in a bit of a pickle: should she pay Jane to keep the drama out of her life, or was it the right call to stick with the agreement?

---