Question: When I needed money to get my restaurant started, my good friend Dave lent me $12,000 with the proviso that I hire his son, who hopes to be a chef someday.  The kid’s been working in the kitchen for three months now, and he’s all thumbs.  Is there anything wrong with firing Ryan, or am I stuck with him until I pay off the loan, which won’t be for another year?

Our answer: A deal is a deal.  So whether you’re stuck with Ryan hinges on exactly what the deal was you struck with his father.  If, in return for the twelve grand, you promised to give Dave’s son a try-out in your kitchen, then you’re free to tell the Platebreak Kid to turn in his toque. 

But if you effectively promised to give Ryan the opportunity to learn his craft - and it sure sounds as if that’s why Dave lent you the money - then the fact that the kid’s a disaster doesn’t get you off the hook. 

Were Ryan stealing from you, of course you could fire him.  Were he lazy and disrespectful, you’d be within bounds to insist that he shape up or leave.  But being a klutz isn’t sufficient grounds for letting Ryan go - not if Dave believed the loan guaranteed an apprenticeship for his son.

And what if you and Dave never discussed the exact terms of Ryan’s employment?  In that case, try to err on the side of keeping the kid.  After all, your friend did you a big favor.  You should try to do him one in return.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of the upcoming book “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: I work for a firm that is notoriously cheap when it comes to paying its employees. I’m now interviewing for a job at another company. When I’m asked about my current salary, should I tell the truth or give the amount that I know I’m really worth in the job market?

Our Answer: Lie through your teeth.

Just kidding. While we sympathize with the position you’re in, being underpaid by one firm doesn’t justify lying to another, especially when the sole purpose of the misrepresentation is to manipulate the company into paying you more. To lie like that would be as unethical as your prospective employer misleading you about, say, the period of time before you’ll be eligible for a raise.

Ethics aside, lying is a bad idea because you run the risk of getting caught. And since falsifying information on a job application is often grounds for dismissal, that’s a risk to avoid at all costs. Imagine losing your job for lying, then being asked in subsequent interviews why you left your last position.

So tell the truth - or try to deflect the question. But either way, make a case for why you should be paid the salary you want. Point out what people with your skills make elsewhere. Mention that you’re changing jobs because you feel you’re underpaid. And most important, explain what makes you worth the money. After all, what matters to your prospective boss is not what you feel you’re entitled to but how hard you’re willing to work and what you’re prepared to deliver. So tell him!

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of the upcoming book “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: My wife wants to start her own business, and to raise money we need to sell our share of the vacation home we own with my sister’s family.  We’ve offered it to Rachel and her husband, but they say they can’t afford to buy us out.  This means putting the place on the market, which they refuse to do.  Would we be wrong to insist?

Our answer:  Even if you have the right to force the sale of the house, you’re going to have to find another solution if you want to close escrow with a clear conscience.  That’s because the deal you entered into isn’t some arms-length real estate investment. It’s a family arrangement, so each of you is obligated to accommodate the other.   For you, this means not insisting on selling the home.  For Rachel, it means trying - really trying - to help you cash out. 

What are your options?   Begin by looking for a bank that will let you borrow against your equity in the house.  If that won’t work, try giving your sister an economic incentive:  either a chunk of the profit on your share if she’ll agree to sell, or the opportunity to buy your share at a below-market price.  If neither appeals to her, try to find a buyer for your interest in the cabin.  If she’s turned down your other offers, Rachel can’t be too choosey about whomever you find.

If by now you’re thinking that getting your money out shouldn’t be this hard, you’re right.  Next time you buy a house, boat or car with someone, agree in advance what you’ll do if one of you wants to sell and the other doesn’t.

Money Magazine’s ethicists are authors of the forthcoming book “‘Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?’” (Free Press). E-mail them at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: My husband and I have been planning to retire early. The thing is, our 28-year-old daughter, who is something of a late bloomer, still relies on us financially. Once we retire, we won’t be able to help Nora nearly as much. I think we should continue working until she’s self-supporting, but my husband says no way - we’ve already done enough. Please tell him there’s no time limit on being a good parent!

Our answer: While it’s true that there’s no time limit on being a good parent, the clock is running out on Nora’s being a child. Your obligation was to feed her, shelter her, educate her and teach her right from wrong while she was a minor. Now it’s her obligation to support herself and not stand in the way of her parents’ retirement - and happiness.

Yes, we know that 50 is the new 40, 20 is the new 14, and kids are leaving the nest later and later. But since your child is old enough to run for Congress, it’s not unreasonable to expect her to take responsibility for paying her own way in life.

If Nora needed your help because she’d been sick, say, or because she was completing a degree, that would be different. But Nora is just a late bloomer. And one thing late bloomers can’t do is expect Mom and Dad to keep working indefinitely while they take their time blossoming.

So do yourselves and Nora a favor: Help your daughter grow up. And enjoy that early retirement.

P.S. It makes no difference that your retirement will be “early.” What matters is how old Nora is, not how old you are.

Question: When I told my new neighbor I was participating in a triathlon to raise money for a charity, he volunteered to send in a check for $50.  I was very appreciative at the time.  But since then, he’s asked me to support him in three different runs for worthy causes.  I’ve said yes each time, but this is starting to get expensive.  At what point can I say no, and what should I tell him?

Our answer:  Here’s what you do:  The next time your neighbor asks you for money, tell him that you wish him well, but unfortunately you can’t help out this time.  And keep telling him that until he gives up. 

Then here’s the next thing you do:  Swear to yourself you’ll never put anyone else in the unpleasant position you’re now in.

There’s just one rule when it comes to soliciting this kind of donation: Unless you’re reasonably certain the person will be happy to make one, don’t ask.  Your neighbor has been breaking that rule - and we’re not so sure you didn’t as well when you told him about the triathlon. 

Americans are by and large an unusually charitable people.  But most of us prefer to devote the lion’s share of our charitable giving budget to the causes that matter to us, not the ones that interest our neighbors.  So when you ask someone to support you in an event like the triathlon or to buy a box of candy to help fund your child’s class trip, you’re asking them to put their friendship with you ahead of their own favorite charities.  That’s asking for a substantial favor - a favor that shouldn’t be sought lightly or, as your neighbor has, repeatedly.

Question: We frequently take ski trips with another couple. The problem is, every time we do, Rob and Claire help themselves to the nicest bedroom in the condo we share. My wife says that this is only fair since Claire usually finds and books the condos. I say since we’re paying half, we should get the better room as often as they do. Who’s right?

Our Answer: Sick of climbing into the bunk beds in that dark little bedroom by the utility closet, are you? We’re with you. If two couples are splitting the bill, the better room goes to the folks who didn’t have it on the last trip, not the couple who are quickest to park their bags there. But for this to happen with Rob and Claire, you’re going to have to speak up. There’s no other way out of the dungeon.

If they claim that Claire has earned the better room by playing travel agent, they’d have a point, just as your wife says. But if that’s how they feel, they’re obligated to say so and not simply extract their “fee.” After all, you might prefer their side of the deal - the condo booker gets the best room - to the side they’ve unilaterally assigned you.

Whatever your friends’ reasoning, be prepared to start taking turns making the travel plans when you tell them you want to start taking turns with the master bedroom. And should you ever vacation with another couple, put deciding who gets what on the table the first time the good-vs.-bad-room situation arises. Nipping the problem in the bud is a lot easier than taking back a benefit that longtime vacation pals have come to take for granted.

Question:  My second husband left his entire estate to me, but he made me promise that I’d bequeath whatever remained of his money to his alma mater (we have no children).  Since Ted’s death, changes have occurred at the college that I disapprove of.  So I want to leave the money, in his name, to a very worthwhile charity I’m involved with – a charity I know he’d approve of.  Is there anything wrong with that?

Our answer: The question is not whether Ted would approve of your favorite charity.  The question is whether he’d share your disapproval of the changes at his alma mater and, if so, whether his disapproval would have led him to disinherit Old Ivy had he survived you.  In other words, the only ethical reason for you to break your promise is that you’re certain - 100% certain - that Ted would no longer want his money going to the school.

We say this because nothing in your letter suggests that Ted wanted you to decide how to dispose of his money.  On the contrary, the fact that he asked you to swear you’d leave it to his school is strong evidence that he didn’t want you to second guess him.

What you can do, though, is specify in your will that your bequest to the college be used for a purpose you approve of, provided you’re sure Ted would have approved of it as well.  Perhaps this means leaving the money for scholarships, perhaps to a specific department.  While the program you choose may not mean as much to you as the charity you’d prefer to support, at least you won’t have to hold your nose while you keep your word.

Question: I’m planning to ask my girlfriend to marry me, and here’s the problem: I’m building us a new home, so cash is tight. While I want to give Stacy a diamond solitaire, I don’t have the money. My plan is to buy her a synthetic “diamond,” then replace it with a real one as soon as the house is finished and I get a little ahead. Must I tell Stacy the truth about the ring up front, or can I wait until I give her the real diamond?

Our Answer: Tell her when you give her the ring. Unless Stacy is different from most women, she’s going to show off that ring to all her friends and family. Imagine how foolish she would feel, then, if she were to learn later that the stone she’d told everyone was a perfect diamond was nothing more than a perfect fake. She’d be humiliated, of course, and you’d look like a loser for putting her in that situation.

That’s not the only problem with your plan. Spouses need to trust each other, and Stacy is going to have trouble trusting you if she learns that your first act as a prospective husband was to mislead her. For reasons that should be obvious to everyone looking to tie the knot, it’s a bad idea, and you should forget it.

That said, we applaud your financial priorities. Putting the house ahead of the bling is certainly prudent, and we wonder if you’re not selling Stacy short in assuming she doesn’t share your sense of responsibility. Why don’t you take the high road here and ask her what she thinks about all this? You may be pleasantly surprised by her answer.

Question: My brother’s a terrible cheapskate. Two examples:  He gave my son a two-dollar comic book for Christmas, though we always give his kids nice presents.  And I paid for most of our father’s 65th birthday party because he claimed many of the expenses, like nice wine, were unnecessary.  I say my brother’s penny-pinching is unfair to other people, but he says the way he spends his money is none of my business.  Who’s right?

Our answer: That depends.  Is your brother truly a cheapskate or merely a tightwad?

Here’s what we mean.  Your brother isn’t required to spend his money on more expensive gifts, more expensive wines or anything else just because that’s what you’d prefer.  And that’s true whether he’s Donald Trump or Donald Trump’s driver.

There’s a big difference, though, between being tight with money and failing to spend what an occasion calls for.  If your brother was unwilling to pony up for his share of the food and drink that others in your family agreed would be customary for your father’s party, then he’s a cheapskate.  And if that’s the case, it is your business.  You have every right to protest and every right to insist on being reimbursed.  

Now about those nice presents you’ve been giving your brother’s kids: Has he happily accepted them and said nothing, or has he let you know he thought they were extravagant?  If he’s said nothing, you again have a right to complain.  Because unless he’s told you he doesn’t want to exchange expensive gifts, your brother has no business reaping the benefits of your willingness to do what he won’t - spend money on other people. 

Question: While visiting my friend Jenna, I took off my very expensive watch to help her in the kitchen. When I went to put it back on, the watch was gone. Later I learned that Jenna’s babysitter had stolen it, along with some of Jenna’s jewelry, and sold everything at a flea market. I think I should ask Jenna to reimburse me, since the theft occurred in her house and was committed by her employee. My husband disagrees. What should I do?

Our answer: Assuming the thief or her parents aren’t going to make restitution, the first thing you should do is call your insurance agent. Virtually all homeowners policies cover theft, though generally only after the first $1,000. And who, you probably want to know, should cover that hefty deductible?

Individuals have an ethical, and often legal, obligation to provide for the safety and well-being of the friends they invite into their homes. Step through a rotting board and your hosts are responsible for whatever injuries you incur, regardless of whether they knew the board was unsound.

In a similar vein, Jenna is responsible for the behavior of her employee, even if she had no reason to think the babysitter was dishonest. Ignorance and a pure heart don’t wash away responsibility.

But Jenna is your friend - and fellow victim - and those are two good reasons to cut her some slack. So instead of asking her to make you whole, we suggest that you ask her to split your loss with you.

We’re not sure she’ll appreciate how fair you’re being, but she should.