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:
OnlyLovers · 09/02/2016 15:44

That's very underhanded. And you would have made more money from a full-price order.

Next time you see him, tell him breezily, 'BTW that was a cheap stunt you pulled about the cake; I turned down a full-price customer for that.' Leave it at that, don't get into arguments.

And don't be in a hurry to do him a favour again.

fascicle · 09/02/2016 15:44

He was commissioning a service - he can't dictate payment terms!

You could say that OP's dh had, albeit unwittingly, dictated payment terms on his show ticket in the form of extended credit.

theycallmemellojello · 09/02/2016 15:49

Lweji - I agree! However, I do agree that op would have been within her rights to withhold the cake until she got cash. But I'm not sure that BIL would have agreed to this, so she would have been left holding the cake and still owing a debt, and not really in a better position.

Original poster
OohMavis · 09/02/2016 15:49

I just think he should have sorted it with DH, I had no idea about the debt. He didn't have to bring my business into it.

The cake I made him was worth double the price I charged him, he knew he was getting a discount. Knowing him as I do he probably sees what he did as thrifty and clever, him getting a good deal, and as such I feel taken advantage of.

I'm not about to hunt him down or anything, but I think this will make me more wary in future when working for family.

OP posts:
TattyDevine · 09/02/2016 15:52

I can understand the maths...technically you are even as its a joint account, etc. I can see it from BIL's point of view, in that it was a way of getting his money back, and yes it was a bit underhand.

From your point of view though - it sucks, because if DH had paid your BIL back out of your joint account, you probably wouldn't have noticed. But you DID notice the time and effort that went into making this cake. So it was you making the "effort". If you'd made the same "effort" for a paid order, you would have got word of mouth, profit (even if that then did disappear from the joint account because your husband paid back his brother) and possibly repeat business.

So whilst your finances are joint, it feels very much as if "you" paid the debt, without even agreeing to do so.

YANBU.

Grapejuicerocks · 09/02/2016 15:53

I'm with lweji on this. Maths obviously isn't a strong point for some on this thread.

theycallmemellojello · 09/02/2016 15:54

But Mavis, if your business and personal accounts are separate, why can't you transfer the money from your personal to the business account, or get your DH to transfer the money from his account to your business account? If you do this, it's as if you've paid back the debt to BIL and then he's spent the money you paid him back on the cake (at a price you agreed).

WickedWax · 09/02/2016 15:55

I think BIL was a bit underhand doing what he did. I can see how you feel a bit taken advantage of.

I can also see the point that the net result is the same - you are only down the amount of discount you offered - that would have been the case regardless of whether BIL had handed over cash, or did what he did.

However, your DH does need to transfer payment into your business account - presumably you'll still need to put it thru the books?

LeaLeander · 09/02/2016 15:55

And the difference would be? Just that the OP would be prepared mentally?

And the difference would be, that the OP would have had the opportunity to say "Oh,sorry, I have to maximize incoming revenue at a couple of peak times a year and this is one of them. I can't pay for supplies without cash flow and I need to use this time wisely to generate future trade with actual customers. But I'll be happy to make you a cake to pay off part of DH's debt when we are not so busy. Or, you could see him about that money he owes you."

And, the difference would be, the OP could have said to her husband "Do you still owe BIL for show tickets last year? What was your plan to come up with the money? He wants me to turn down paying customers and back him a free cake right amid my busy period. Is that the best way we have of repaying him?"

Etc., etc. It's a question of the BIL giving the OP the courtesy of being fully aware of what was being negotiated instead of unilaterally deciding to pay by canceling debt rather than forking over cash. In the long run the net effect on the family finances is the same but in the short run it upsets the OP's cash flow. I wonder how many of you would be surprised for example if a bank to which you owed money arbitrarily decided to intercept your wages, without your knowledge, instead of contacting you to work out a payment plan?

OP, what is the amount that was owed BIL and what was the market rate for the cake, and the discount rate you offered BIL?

bakeoffcake · 09/02/2016 15:56

How rude is he? His brother may have owed him money but it had nothing to do with you or your cake making business!

I'd be seething if BIL did this to me.

I hope his Valentine shoves the cake in his face

Ludways · 09/02/2016 15:57

Your dh should've paid his debts, he's the one at fault.

theycallmemellojello · 09/02/2016 15:58

I agree Lea, but that's only assuming that DH is not good for the money. If he is good for it, then he can just pay for the cake on BIL's behalf. It might be that the DH was hoping to extend the credit BIL was giving him, but if so that's for DH to look out for not BIL.

Lweji · 09/02/2016 15:59

But you'd still lose money in relation to a paying order if there was no debt, or if your OH paid him separately.

The issue here is the debt you didn't know about. So, your OH, not your BIL.

Unless you have separate allowances for personal spending or something.

Grapejuicerocks · 09/02/2016 16:00

How much did dh owe and how much did you tell bil you wanted for the cake? If he discounted it further by not giving you any difference - then I can see why you are peeved. And only then.

Lilyannapollyanna · 09/02/2016 16:01

The bottom line is that the BIL was deceitful - he didn't say upfront that he wanted the cake in exchange for the cash the OPs DH owed him.
Underhand and sneaky I'd be pissed off too

acasualobserver · 09/02/2016 16:01

Forget the maths, the OP was lied to by her BIL who she was doing a favour because he was family. Of course she's pissed off.

Play the long game OP. Tell BIL you're always happy to bake for him. Just make sure the next cake has a few extra ingredients.

Lweji · 09/02/2016 16:01

Sorry, LeaLeander

But it still doesn't make sense.
The end result is the same. It was not a free cake for the brother. It still cost him what the OP's OH owed him.
And the OP was happy with making a discounted cake knowing she might have to turn down fully paying customers.

Lweji · 09/02/2016 16:06

We can't forget the maths (conveniently for those who can't be arsed with the maths) because they mean that the OP wasn't actually out of pocket and didn't actually make less money than she should have. Or make a free cake.

The OP is quite contradictory on this.
Saying it's pointless for the OP to pay as it's all the same contradicts the later assertion that the BIL got a free cake. He didn't.

LeaLeander · 09/02/2016 16:07

Grapejuicerocks, I think we all understand the maths and the fact there will be little net difference to the OP's family finances. Though I think the full cost of the cake rather than the discounted cost should be deducted from the debt, since BIL is being such a stickler about who owes whom for what.

What boggles some of us is the BIL's discourteous and sneaky approach. It's one thing to say "OP, I'd fancy a king cake for Mardi Gras; would it be OK if you made me one and we canceled the cost out of the debt DH owes me for show tickets last year? A win-win for all of us!" Giving the OP the opportunity to agree, or not.

It's quite another to order the cake, carry it away and say over one's shoulder "Oh, btw, get the money out of your husband, he owes me! Ha ha!"

You wonder about maths not being some posters' strong suit, I wonder what the interpersonal relationships are like among those who think the latter approach is OK and nothing more than what the OP and her husband deserve for forgetting a repayment. Must be a dreary way to go through life.

AnchorDownDeepBreath · 09/02/2016 16:08

I just think he should have sorted it with DH, I had no idea about the debt. He didn't have to bring my business into it.

That's not practical on a few levels.

Firstly, that he ordered the cake from your business, and it would be beyond bad practice to then make payment agreements with your husband.

Secondly, that he'll likely see you and your DH as family, and part of the same unit. So you, collectively, owe him £X amount for the tickets. He now owes you, collectively, £X amount for the cake. It doesn't make any more sense for him to give you the money for you to give it back then it does for your DH to do the same.

I get why you are annoyed - you expected profit and you got nothing. That's your husband's fault, for not paying the debt. It may well be that they have precedents for paying each other back slowly, but he could have warned you that he owed his DB money. It's more than possible that DB can't afford to be owed the money any longer, or is just fed up of waiting. This was the logical way of evening things up. It's just unfortunate that it was an individual effort to make the cake and it paid for a debt that your DH individually ran up.

SerenityReynolds · 09/02/2016 16:08

YANBU. The debt was between your DH and BIL and nothing to do with you. Especially if BIL hadn't even asked him for the money back - it would be a different matter if he had asked repeatedly and been fobbed off by your DH, but it doesn't sound like that's the case. He should have mentioned it when you were discussing the cost of the cake, the fact he didn't does seem a bit sly.

Yes, technically the net cost is almost the same as if the debt was paid out of the joint account. But I'd be annoyed that I'd spent hours of my time effectively and unknowingly paying it off by making a fancy cake (at a small loss financially, and possibly of a future client), when you/your DH could have just nipped to the cashpoint to get the money if BIL had only asked up front!

witsender · 09/02/2016 16:09

Underhanded.

Lweji · 09/02/2016 16:10

Of course, there is the BIL's point of view, of how cheeky the OP was to charge him for the cake when his brother still owed him money. Assuming he thought she knew about the debt.

I only see one at fault here and it's the OH.

SerenityReynolds · 09/02/2016 16:10

Lea, you said it much better than I did!

SouthWesterlyWinds · 09/02/2016 16:10

So if you hadn't have given him discount, would he owe you money?

Swipe left for the next trending thread