Fourteen-year-olds are not exactly famous for their financial planning, but these three friends had managed to do something genuinely impressive. When their local community pool was closing for the summer, they decided to work for their own pool instead.
Pete, his friends C and J, all 14, mowed lawns and took on various jobs around the neighborhood. After several weeks, they combined their earnings and bought a cheap above-ground pool. Their parents were proud of them, and because C had the largest backyard, everyone agreed to set it up there.
It sounded like the perfect summer plan.
There was just one problem. After the first weekend, two of the three boys were apparently no longer welcome in the pool they had helped purchase.
And Pete’s older brother eventually decided to fight pettiness with a hot tub.
The Pool Was Supposed to Belong to All Three Boys
The three teenagers had worked for weeks to earn enough money for the pool. Pete and J put in their own money, while C did the same. Once they had enough, they bought the pool and installed it in C’s backyard because there was more room there.
During the first weekend, all three friends enjoyed it together.
But after that, Pete and J kept getting turned down whenever they asked to swim.
At first, Pete’s brother assumed there was some misunderstanding. Eventually, he spoke with C’s parents directly.
Their explanation was liability.
They said they didn’t want anyone except their own son using the pool because if somebody were injured or drowned, they could potentially be held responsible. Their position was that the pool was on their property, they supplied the water, and therefore they ultimately decided who could use it.
The older brother understood the concern to a point. But there was one detail he couldn’t get past.
Pete and J had helped pay for the pool.
He reminded C’s parents that the boys hadn’t simply shown up asking to use someone else’s swimming pool. They had worked for their money, contributed to the purchase, and helped install the thing.
The conversation didn’t go well.
C’s father essentially told him that the pool was on their property, so they made the rules. When the issue was pushed further, C’s parents threatened to stop Pete from visiting their house altogether.
That left Pete furious.
He had been friends with C for nearly a decade, and the whole situation felt incredibly unfair. He even suggested calling the police, but his brother decided that escalating the situation legally would only make things worse.
Instead, he thought of another solution.
Enter the Hot Tub
The older brother went online and found an inflatable hot tub for roughly the same amount the boys had spent on the pool.
He bought it.
He admitted that the decision was petty. He also admitted that he dipped into his savings to do it.
But unlike the pool sitting in C’s backyard, this hot tub came with one very simple rule.
Everyone was welcome.
Pete quickly started using it almost every day. C and J were welcome, too, along with other neighborhood kids. The only requirement was that everyone shower before or after using it.
Suddenly, Pete and his friends had somewhere they could actually enjoy the summer together.
And C apparently preferred it.
C told OP that he liked hanging out in the hot tub with his friends much more than swimming alone in the pool at home.
That did not go over particularly well with C’s parents.
They reportedly became increasingly frustrated that their son was spending time at OP’s house instead of enjoying the pool they had insisted was exclusively his.
The irony was difficult to miss. They had wanted to prevent other children from using the pool because of liability concerns. Instead, they ended up with a pool that C barely wanted to use.
Was the Hot Tub Actually the Better Solution?
The Reddit community largely sided with OP.
Many commenters agreed that C’s parents had legitimate concerns about liability, but questioned why they had agreed to let three teenagers collectively purchase and install a pool on their property in the first place.
If they ultimately intended to restrict access to their own son, commenters argued, Pete and J should have received their money back.
That point is important. The disagreement wasn’t really about whether C’s parents had the right to establish rules on their property. They arguably did. The bigger issue was whether it was fair to keep something the other boys had paid for while preventing them from using it.
And OP’s hot tub offered a practical workaround.
Rather than vandalizing the pool, demanding police involvement, or forcing the boys into another fight with C’s parents, he created another place where the friends could spend time together.
The situation also illustrates something about boundaries. C’s parents were entitled to their rules, but Pete and J were equally entitled to decide they didn’t want to keep investing their time and energy into a situation that felt unfair.
Some suggested moving the pool to another property if possible.
Others joked that C’s parents had essentially created their own punishment by making their son prefer the hot tub.
Was buying the hot tub petty? Absolutely.
But sometimes petty does not have to mean cruel. OP didn’t destroy the pool, interfere with C’s parents, or prevent C from using something his parents considered his. He simply gave his brother and his friends another option.
The bigger unresolved issue is the money Pete and J put into the original pool. If the boys truly paid for ownership together, getting their contributions back may be the fairest long-term solution.
For now, though, the teenagers have somewhere to hang out, Pete gets to enjoy the summer, and C has discovered that a pool isn’t nearly as fun when you’re the only person allowed in it.
Sometimes the best revenge is simply giving people somewhere better to be.
