Who is being unreasonable over birthday present?

[VampireFinch]

A few months ago my husband accidentally broke a piece of camera equipment belonging to me. It was a genuine accident and just one of those things that happens - no hard feelings. It is, however, expensive to replace. We decided we didn’t have the money to do so right away, and so would wait until we could afford it. My husband has been putting aside money now and then to save for a replacement.

It was my birthday last week and as a gift my husband bought me a replacement of the broken equipment. This has led to a minor dispute / discussion over gift etiquette.

My POV is that replacing something you broke isn’t a substitute for a gift. He was obliged to replace the broken item, and doing so for my birthday in place of a gift leaves me in a worse off position overall.

His POV is that the replacement item cost more than we would usually spend on birthday gifts and it was therefore reasonable. I also got the replacement a lot quicker as a result of it being a gift - in effect, my gift is the additional time I have with the replacement which I wouldn’t have got if I’d had a birthday gift and had to wait longer for him to afford the replacement.

This is clearly a low stakes problem! But I’d be interested to know the consensus on which of us is being reasonable.

I think he could have given you something small for your birthday as well as sorting out the replacement.

I can see your argument, but I'd far rather the money was spent on replacing someing I actually want and will use than a random gift.

I think it depends how he funded it. If you've been saving together for a replacement as and when you can, but DH used his personal funds/his portion of the shared account to top it up so he can buy it now, then you have received something. Otherwise you would still be saving for it, including from your own funds (you say you have each been adding to the savings).

If he's bought an expensive thing out of your joint funds before you can afford it, then yes that's unreasonable.

I know that he broke it, but as you say it was a genuine accident. It's not the same as someone who has borrowed money, which is a deliberate act.

But, yes, I agree a little token present alongside the replacement would have been a good idea.

So he's having to save up to buy something he accidentally broke?

And you wanted him to use some of his limited funds to ALSO buy you a gift?

And consider him not buying you a gift as you "missing out"?

Even though you get an expensive piece of equipment, which you presumably need and are missing out on using, far sooner than you would have?

I'd be happy to get it sooner. In fact I might even have suggested he buy it as part of the gift.

Unless it was something he deliberately broke or something he accidentally broke by doing something which was obviously going to break it/you'd told him not to do...

Tbh I’d rather the camera piece I actually need and would use. If the piece costs £1000 and he’s been saving up to replace it let’s say he’s got another £200 to save before having enough. I would much rather he put £200 with the rest of the money he saved instead of using it for other items I don’t actually need