Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
roundaboutthetown · 11/02/2016 14:15

No, the cake did not cost him tickets - he never gave his sil any tickets for the cake. He paid cash for the tickets and was owed cash by his db. However, he wrote off that debt when he got his free cake, even though his db didn't make it for him. His db therefore got his debt written off, he got free cake and the OP got to work really hard for both of them. Grin

Lweji · 11/02/2016 14:19

Or her DH worked hard at his job to pay her his brother's cake.

roundaboutthetown · 11/02/2016 14:52

No he didn't, because his db never discussed the debt with him. How could he work hard for a cake he didn't know about? Grin

roundaboutthetown · 11/02/2016 14:53

And what is his incentive to work harder, now, now that his wife's cake has let him off the hook? GrinGrin

GruntledOne · 11/02/2016 15:02

The OP says her and her dh have totally joint finances and that her BIL knows this. They therefore as a couple owe BIL the 40 pounds from the show.

No, nooka, they don't. The husband alone owed the money. The mere fact that they choose to join their finances doesn't change that.

I the the two facts that ought to be obvious to everyone are:

1. OP agreed to make a cake at a discounted price.

2. OP agreed to give her BIL the cake in repayment of her DH's debt.

No, they ought not to be obvious, Toadinthehole. OP didn't ever agree that. Sure, with a shopful of customers she didn't make a big fuss about it and insist he pay, but then he probably knew that would be the outcome.

GruntledOne · 11/02/2016 15:14

Because, presumably, the paying customer came about after she agreed to make a cake for BIL. That customer might not have appeared. She didn't know when she agreed to bake the cake if she was going to have more customers. It was a risk she took.

OP said:
I certainly would have made money if I'd taken the paying order instead of BIL's.
and
I'd have refused the order if he'd told me last week and taken a paying order instead.
and
I'd have told him to speak to DH about it. I'd have most certainly taken a paying order instead.
and
I knew I'd likely be turning orders down
and
It is pretty much that simple, you always get people trying to place last-minute orders, which is helpful in the cases of blank diary spaces and cancellations. If he'd told me at the time of ordering, and still refused to pay after I'd said no thanks, I could have taken another last-minute order.

I think it's a fair bet that OP knows the nature of her business, and she is certain she would have got a paying order. So she has lost out financially.

There's also the factor that if the BiL had a shred of decency he'd have thanked her for the discount and told her husband only to pay back the outstanding £10. So there's a potential alternative source of financial loss there.

nooka · 11/02/2016 16:26

If as the OP says all money is our money, then surely all debt is too?

Where has the shop full of customers come from?

I totally get that the OP feels unappreciated and a bit blindsided by the unknown debt. Her BIL clearly didn't get that he was getting a very good deal with the mates rates and that must be galling.

However I don't get that he was sneaky, underhand, making her pay off his brother's debts etc etc. To me it was a sensible way to reduce the amount of cash being got out and handed around. In the same way that my sister and I swapped present buying costs this Christmas because it was easier. If the BIL had claimed his debt and then used that money to pay the OP she might not have felt so aggrieved, but she/they would still have been in exactly the same financial position.

It would of course have been better if he had asked her if it was OK to manage the transaction like that before he came to pick up the cake, but I doubt very much that there was a huge amount of forethought involved.

GruntledOne · 11/02/2016 17:30

That just isn't how the law works, nooka. If your partner ordered something off me and failed to pay for it, I wouldn't be able to sue you for it, even if you did have joint accounts.

It might well have been a sensible way of dealing with the debt, IF BiL had agreed it with OP first. Instead he asked her to make the cake, happily accepted the discount, waited till she had done loads of work, waited till he had collected the cake, and only then said that he didn't propose to pay. How on earth is that sensible or anything but sneaky and underhand? Your sister and you presumably agreed what you did last Christmas all above board and perfectly amicably. He may or may not not have done it quite as cold-bloodedly as that, but it surely must have been planned before he collected the cake, so he could still have asked OP if she agreed.

nooka · 12/02/2016 02:38

Not sure what the law has to do with this thread. This was a transaction within a family. No one is going to be suing anyone.

The point is that regardless as to whether the BIL had paid her and got the money owed from her DH or didn't pay her and didn't get the money owed from her dh their bank account has the same amount of money in it. It might feel different, but it is the same.

Crankycunt · 12/02/2016 05:11

I understand the maths. I understand that op's dh is at fault here for not paying back his brother.

However...

I am finding that I agree with posters on the thread that think the op's bil is a sneaky, underhanded, and disrespectful human being.

I come to that conclusion because I can't help feeling that if I went into my brothers garage, and asked him to do my mot, and he fitted me in. When it came to paying and I said that his wife owed me money and he needs to ask her for it. I know logically that it's still the amount of money, however I would feel so rude doing that. I think it shows an absolute lack of respect for my brothers business, and also boundaries too.

CatchIt · 12/02/2016 08:16

I think that what a lot of posters are missing, is that the business account and the joint account are not the same.

BILs money would have gone into the business account. The debt would have come from DH which may not have been the joint account.

My BIL is a plumber, if anyone from my family owed him money, it's not fair that he fixes the sink/boiler/whatever and then say 'oh but FIL lent you xx amount'. It just isn't the same!

It was sneaky and underhand. If BIL hand come clean about the debt on the off, OP may have felt differently about it and maybe still made the cake or chased her DH to pay BIL back.

MrsAmaretto · 12/02/2016 09:03

People get special cakes made for Valentines? misses point of thread completely

Lweji · 12/02/2016 09:05

I think what some pps (who haven't rtft) are missing is that the OP herself stated:
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).
So, according to her there is no difference between the business and the joint account in effect.

Lweji · 12/02/2016 09:06

MrsAmaretto
I think you're the only one who got the point. Grin

rookiemere · 12/02/2016 09:19

Ahem Lweji - I got it too, but after it descended into a tirade about men not valuing woman's work, I had to leave for the sake of my own sanity.

Lweji · 12/02/2016 10:05

Sorry, rookie. :)

roundaboutthetown · 12/02/2016 10:26

But of course, whether they have joint accounts or not, a couple have incomings and outgoings, and what one member of the couple does affects the other... The fact they have a joint account just makes it feel more like the bil effectively told her to pay herself - ie give him the cake for free - because there was no need to involve the dh in getting access to the money. Far from making this a more acceptable proposition, it just makes the whole thing feel even more tawdry, psychologically, because it shows a total lack of respect for whose debt it actually was. I totally fail to understand why family should be entitled to be even less respectful of each other than strangers are supposed to be... Why is it OK for bil to be too bloody lazy to get £30 out of a hole in the wall, but OK for him to expect the DW to either take time out of her business to make him a cake, or go to the effort of paying herself for a cake she made? It's like with present giving and anything else to do with those you are supposed to care about - it's the thought that counts,many in this case, bil's thought was he favoured his cash flow and his easy life over hers.

PoundingTheStreets · 12/02/2016 10:52

I think what would piss me off is the delegating of responsibility to sort out a debt I didn't even know about which had nothing to do with me.

roundaboutthetown · 12/02/2016 11:00

Well exactly - being married to someone is not the same thing as becoming them. Having a joint account is not the same thing as saying the outside world is now entitled to treat you as one financial entity. Having a joint account is not the same thing as saying bil's are entitled to treat you as the same financial entity, either, even if they think they are family insiders. The bil doesn't have his name on the joint account, after all... So he has absolutely no right whatsoever to make assumptions about what is financially expedient.

Birdsgottafly · 12/02/2016 12:16

It's a disgraceful way of treating a family member.

It's the lack of respect for taking up the OPs time and thinking that's it's ok to be deceitful.

I agree that, often men don't put as much value on the time/skill/loss of future business, because it's a female pastime. If she was a builder, giving up her time and work, she'd have pubs loads of men agreeing with her.

OP, I think that your DH should have made a big thing out of the way you've been treated and should be making it up to you, his non actions have brought about this whole thing.

""No more discount cake.""

That was a massively generous discount. I have a relation who is a 'handy man', I won't let him discount anymore than 10-15% and I let him fit mine in, when he has nothing else on the go.

MrBensMrs · 12/02/2016 12:45

I agree with catsmother on this! What a devious arse!

OnlyLovers · 12/02/2016 13:16

I agree that, often men don't put as much value on the time/skill/loss of future business, because it's a female pastime. If she was a builder, giving up her time and work, she'd have pubs loads of men agreeing with her.

Ain't that the truth!

Riderontheswarm · 12/02/2016 13:26

I would be mortified if my DH didn't pay his debts to his friends or family. At least the debt is now repaid.

GruntledOne · 12/02/2016 23:31

It's not clear that BiL necessarily knew that OP would definitely be repaid, is it? For all he knew his brother could be as much of an arsehole as he is and refuse.

fascicle · 13/02/2016 11:32

I think there's an absence of information relating to Mavis's dh, bil and this transaction, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the bil's motivation with the offset. I disagree that there's any evidence to suggest the bil was being sexist. I know plenty of men who would do the same with other men (without upsetting the other party).