In various human-Agent collaborative settings the agent is fault-prone. In many of these settings, it is possible that the human user will also account to failure, hindering task execution. In this paper we study the effect of the latter type of failures over the user's satisfaction with the agent in the collaborative setting. We report the results of two experiments, differing in the number of agent's faults and the way faults influence task progress and attract players' focus, with 264 subjects recruited and interacted through Amazon Mechanical Turk. We find that when the user accounts for some faults during the collaborative execution of the task, she becomes more forgiving to the agent faults, and consequently more satisfied with the collaboration, compared to the case where she makes no faults. The importance of this finding becomes most apparent in the design of collaborative agents.