Wedding Gift From Brother-In-Law Declined After Years, Is The Husband Wrong For Expecting It?

Wedding gifts are meant to last a lifetime, but what happens when one seems to come with a hidden expiration date?

That’s exactly what one couple discovered after receiving two round-trip tickets to anywhere in the continental U.S. as a gift from the husband’s brother.

Years later, when they tried to use the tickets, the brother told them they were no longer valid, even though nothing had been mentioned about an expiration.

What started as a simple request for a favor quickly escalated into a heated argument.

It’s tempting to think of a gift as a fixed token, once given, it stays valid forever. But research into the nature of gift‑giving suggests it isn’t always so simple. Gifts often come embedded in social expectations and assumptions of reciprocity.

According to theorists following Marcel Mauss, a gift is not just a transfer of something material, it carries part of the giver’s identity, intentions and social bond.

Gifts create a kind of social contract: there’s an implicit expectation not only to accept the gift, but also to reciprocate, or at least honor the spirit behind it.

When someone gives a gift, like two airline tickets, it may carry a sense that the recipient owes something in return someday, even if subtly, or at least should respect the giver’s intent and circumstances.

But gifts aren’t immutable promises. Some social scientists argue that once a gift is given and accepted, the giver’s obligation ends, especially if the context changes significantly over time.

In modern societies, many gifts fall into what could be called “pure gifts”, voluntary, unconditional, and without explicit obligations for future use or redemption.

That means a gift given years ago might lose its “redeemable value” over time, especially if circumstances change (work responsibilities, personal comfort, shifting priorities), making the original offer no longer feasible or comfortable to fulfill.

In the OP’s case, the brother‑in‑law’s gift of two round‑trip tickets was generous, and likely based on goodwill and trust at that time.

The absence of a stated expiration date gave the OP a reasonable expectation to redeem them later.

But from a social‑exchange perspective, a gift doesn’t always carry a perpetual obligation, especially once considerable time has passed and life circumstances change.

If the brother‑in‑law now refuses to honour the tickets because the situation has changed for him, socially and emotionally, one can reasonably argue he is within his rights to withdraw the offer, even if it feels morally disappointing to the OP.

OP might benefit from accepting the fact that some gifts don’t have indefinite “validity,” especially those contingent on personal or logistical factors like airline benefits.

Instead of demanding cash compensation, which transforms a relational gesture into a transaction, a calmer conversation acknowledging changed circumstances might preserve dignity for both parties.

If connection and harmony matter more than the monetary or travel value, OP could frame their disappointment gently rather than as a claim or demand.

This approach respects the original gift as an act of generosity, without forcing the giver into a promise that may no longer feel realistic or appropriate for them.

In short, gift‑giving isn’t always a guarantee for future return. Sometimes, the gift is a moment in time, generous then, but not always redeemable later.

In relationships, honouring goodwill often matters more than pressing a claim.

Here’s how people reacted to the post:

These commenters immediately called out the OP for their entitlement, stressing that the brother-in-law’s gift had an expiration, and the OP’s failure to use it within a reasonable timeframe was not the BIL’s fault.

These Redditors added to the criticism, pointing out that the OP was completely out of touch by asking the BIL to pay for someone else’s plane tickets and then demanding such an inflated amount.

These commenters questioned the OP’s logic, particularly the inflated $1600 price tag.

These Redditors discussed the concept of gift expiration and noted how the OP’s situation resembled a gift card, which often comes with conditions or time limits.

These users emphasized the OP’s failure to understand the nature of the gift.

These commenters highlighted the OP’s immaturity and inability to accept disappointment gracefully.

In the end, wedding gifts are supposed to be given with the intention of bringing joy, not creating family feuds.

Were they out of line for expecting the tickets to be valid, or did the brother have the right to change the terms after all these years?

It’s a complicated issue, but one thing’s clear,this family drama is far from over. What would you have done in their shoes? Let us know below!