Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to feel tricked and taken advantage of?

508 replies

OohMavis · 09/02/2016 14:28

I'm a cakemaker. Valentines is a busy time of the year, but last week DH's brother asked me to make a cake for his girlfriend, so him being family, I fit him in last minute with a discount, price was agreed last week.

He came to pick it up today but instead of paying me, he's told me to ask DH for the money, because DH borrowed it from him Angry and off he went with his cake.

I had no idea DH owed him money. It was for some tickets to a show they went to together which his brother bought on his card for convenience. DH just forgot about it.

AIBU to feel as though he's basically got a free cake out of me, and feel really bloody annoyed and tricked? I'm not going to be paid for the cake (our finances are completely joint, BIL knows this, it would be utterly pointless for DH to pay me). My time has been wasted. I turned down a paying order for him.

Just so angry!

OP posts:
theycallmemellojello · 09/02/2016 18:40

I was responding to your point about BIL being Perfectly in his rights to demand his debt is repaid in cake. He's not.

I wasn't saying this, because he wasn't repaid in cake. He was repaid by offsetting his cash debt against the cash debt owed him. No, if you're owed money, you don't have a right to be repaid in cake. But you do have a right to offset debts where they're owed by the same parties. It's the question of whether they are owed by the same parties that's causing confusion. I'm inclined to think that in the absence of a separate corporate entity and in circs where the OP and DH have joint finances, they are the same.

ElderlyKoreanLady · 09/02/2016 18:42

But that's no different to how the situation would have been had BIL nipped to grab the £30 from DH on his way to pick up the cake.

Honestly, I do wonder how people manage to take offence from a logical transaction like this one.

PippaHotamus · 09/02/2016 18:43

My main point is that it could have been agreed and arranged so that the repayment didn't cost the OP other lucrative work as well as paying him back.

It was a bad time.

It should have been a flexible enough agreement that the OP could pay it back when it was convenient and they had the money hanging about.

To demand it by retrospectively using the owed money to pay for something, at a time that is injurious to the OP's profits and so on, is harsh.

No one wants cakes in January, why couldn't he have asked for it then instead of making her turn down work?

PippaHotamus · 09/02/2016 18:45

It;s different only in the fact that he was disingenuous about it.

If you can't grasp why honesty matters in these situations then I don't know how to explain that. It isn't just about the money. It's about trust, and goodwill, and openness.

The guy has carried on as though he doesn't trust the OP or her DH.

Lweji · 09/02/2016 18:45

How did it come about that he got a discount? Did he ask for it? Insisted? Did you offer?

The real loss was in that, particularly as you got orders after accepting his.

But you know this.

It seems more to me that you were already not pleased about it and the relatively minor issue of the debt was the last drop.

My policy from henceforward would be no mates rates at peak times. OK if out of season.

Or you made the cake at cost because that's what family do for each other sometimes.

Grapejuicerocks · 09/02/2016 18:47

Tbf I can understand you thinking that you did all that hard work for no obvious benefit, but then that would be immediately offset by me thinking oh well, dh should have repaid him before now. Oh well we're straight now. There wouldn't be any hard feelings. At the end of the day it's a straight financial transaction that needed to be sorted one way or another. You are being a bit petty over how it's actually sorted when bil probably has no idea of the angst it's caused and just thought it was an obvious way of doing it. He might like a bargain but he hasn't actually benefitted from this in any shape or form other than not having to collect money then pay it out again. Much easier but no more actual benefit for him.

ElderlyKoreanLady · 09/02/2016 18:51

What exactly is there to say that the BIL planned it like this and failed to tell the OP, rather than the more logical (and not at all disingenuous) explanation that he only thought about this solution later on?

Hygge · 09/02/2016 18:52

I don't think you are being unreasonable OP.

The debt was between your DH and his brother. It doesn't matter if your finances are joint finances, you weren't involved in lending or borrowing the money, so why should you have to put the work and effort into paying it back when it could have been solved as simply as BIL reminding your DH about the debt.

His brother should have just asked for the money from your DH, or told you he would like a cake in exchange for writing the debt off.

Tricking you is wrong, and very underhand.

I really wouldn't appreciate being tricked into making something to repay a debt my DH owed. I wouldn't be happy with him for forgetting to pay someone back, but I'd think less of them for being underhand about their methods in retrieving the money.

DH's brother used to borrow money from us and then not pay us back. In fact if we asked for the money he would react as though he had done us a favour by allowing us to lend him the money in the first place and was shocked we felt we deserved it back at all. Even so, I still wouldn't have done what your BIL did in order to get our money back from him.

Why could his brother not just remind your DH, or say upfront that he'd like a cake in lieu of the money?

The fact that he didn't say a word until he had the cake just doesn't sit right with me, it's like he was more concerned with getting one over on you than actually getting his money back.

And I agree that taking a paying order would have been better all around. If you gave him a discount at £30, your DH owed him £40 but a paying order might have earned you £50, you are out of pocket.

Your BIL was in the wrong here. I'd think very carefully about doing him a favour or lending him money in the future, and I'd certainly expect payment up front if I agreed to make anything else for him.

WhereYouLeftIt · 09/02/2016 18:53

Totally agree with PippaHotamus (Tue 09-Feb-16 18:39:01).

YANBU to feel tricked, because your 'frugal' BIL has done just that. "He'll go seriously above and beyond to get a good deal and spend less." Yes that is exactly what he has done here, and you are right to be annoyed.

But he's shot himself in the foot, hasn't he? No more cakes-at-cost for him.

ElderlyKoreanLady · 09/02/2016 18:58

Tricked? What has he tricked the OP out of that he wouldn't have gotten if he'd gotten £30 off the DH that morning and given that to the OP?

diddl · 09/02/2016 19:00

BIL hadn't asked for the money?

He shouldn't have to, should he??

flippinada · 09/02/2016 19:00

Yep, I don't imagine OP will be doing any more favours for her BIL.

Seriouslyffs · 09/02/2016 19:01

It was very sneaky of bil

Thetruthfairy · 09/02/2016 19:06

I wouldn't be hacked off about the money, I would be fuming at the way BIL just decided to organise his own payment arrangements without thinking of whether this was fair to you.
You gave him a discount as a favour. He didn't act grateful at all.
I wouldn't be willing to bake for him in the future x

Adeleslostbeehive · 09/02/2016 19:13

theycallmemellowjello

The debt is not in any way, owed by the same parties. DH is DH and OPs company is the company. They are completely seperate entities.

choceclair123 · 09/02/2016 19:19

I'd send BIL an an invoice but I'm awkward like that Grin

GruntledOne · 09/02/2016 19:24

But you do have a right to offset debts where they're owed by the same parties. It's the question of whether they are owed by the same parties that's causing confusion.

But they absolutely are not. We are long, long past the point when there was any sort of legal assumption that the debts of spouses are automatically joint. If I owed you money, theycallme, and you chose to sue my husband for it, you'd get laughed out of court.

The fact that a husband and wife choose to keep their money in a joint account does not in any way change that fact.

GruntledOne · 09/02/2016 19:29

What exactly is there to say that the BIL planned it like this and failed to tell the OP, rather than the more logical (and not at all disingenuous) explanation that he only thought about this solution later on?

If that was what happened, he should either have realised that it was too late and that he should have asked before he placed the order; or at the very least he should have asked OP if it would be OK to deal with it that way, rather than waiting for her to finish the work, collecting the cake, and then announcing that was what would happen without any attempt to check if she agreed.

Tricked? What has he tricked the OP out of that he wouldn't have gotten if he'd gotten £30 off the DH that morning and given that to the OP?

That would have been the honest thing to do, and there would have been no problem. He has tricked OP into repaying money that she didn't owe.

theycallmemellojello · 09/02/2016 19:31

DH is DH and OPs company is the company. They are completely seperate entities - yes - IF there were a company I would agree. But I don't think there is. OP is a sole trader, and her finances are joint with DH. Unfortunately she is therefore liable for his debts. She says in her OP that there's no point her getting the money off DH - meaning that there's no separation of the finances.

If I owed you money, theycallme, and you chose to sue my husband for it, you'd get laughed out of court. Yes, I'd have to sue you. But I'm afraid that I'd be able to get my hands on the entire contents of your joint account, if that were how much you owed me! I'd also be able to get my hands on your business assets (with a very few statutory exceptions) if your business was not a company.

GruntledOne · 09/02/2016 19:32

BIL hadn't asked for the money?

He shouldn't have to, should he??

OP has explained more than once that this was fairly normal between the brothers and that BiL has run up large debts with her DH in the same way in the past.

But really, that's beside the point. Yes, in an ideal world OP's husband should have paid the money back and not forgotten about it. That still doesn't justify BiL arbitrarily taking it off OP, particularly when he could have got it back from her husband more easily just by asking him.

GruntledOne · 09/02/2016 19:38

theycallme, no, if you get judgment against someone you don't get your hands on the entire contents of their joint account. You cannot get a Third Party Debt Order against a joint account unless all the account holders are liable for the debt.

roundaboutthetown · 09/02/2016 19:41

Of course the bil has benefited more than the OP and her dh - unless he admits to his girlfriend that the posh looking cake he got her was half price. Grin

gamerchick · 09/02/2016 19:52

I'm actually surprised at just how many wimmin on mumsnet would be perfectly happy to be put to work to pay off their partners debt without knowing that's what they were doing until the end. Doesn't happen that often Grin

As long as its all settled financially that's the main thing.

I hope you got your husband told OP. No more lending or borrowing if you're going to be dragged into it.

Adeleslostbeehive · 09/02/2016 19:53

A person is not legally responsible for their spouses debt. Ever.

And a sole trader would be very, very foolish to repay personal debt from company money. Too foolish, I would suggest, to be capable of running a company.

Katedotness1963 · 09/02/2016 20:03

Next time you see his girlfriend remark she must have got a great gift as the cake was free? No, maybe not.

I think he was a bit cheeky and sneaky. I'd bake nothing for him again without the cash upfront.