Steve and Patrick - you're right, it's not really hard to believe that some shady business owners might try to stiff some kids if they think they can get away with it, which is why I'm reluctant to take either side in this one. Taking them to civil court may have been better, in that you have the moral high group of behaving like decent citizens rather than a bunch of thugs who call up their friends to intimidate "The Man," and get in the way of people who don't know either party and just want their car washed. But you are definitely correct in saying that when one assumes ownership of a business, debts are part of the package, just like you can't buy a house and call the old owner in to fix your leaky roof.

We'll never really know the owners' side, but I agree that boycott and picketing is sometimes appropriate, and given the [i]known[/i] facts and the way it was resolved, maybe this was one of them. Glad Neal got what was owed to him.