The understanding of the term dire-straights and sense of entitlement are these days becoming intertwined. Not being able to outfit yourself in the latest clothes is not an entitlement and not dire straights. Neither is not going on a vacation. Vacations (not vacation time that is different) are not a right. There is no entitlement to going on holiday. Not having the money to do so is not a situation of need. Not eating, not having money for rent, THAT is dire straights. The original poster was gifted money on the pretext they were in dire straights. By accepting the money, they entered an unwritten contract of obligation to the gifter to spend that money in a responsible fashion for those things absolutely required of them. That obligation extends beyond the change of circumstance. If the original poster's financial situation changed for the better then they were obligated to return it to the gifter. If the gifter out of etiquette and decency does not accept this then I think the original poster ought to be putting the funds aside for a future crisis and responsible use. Did the gifters know the original poster was going to fritter the money away on themselves when they turned down the offer of it's return? Likely not. I would have been fuming. How bloody irresponsible.