Birthday bill split

[KnickerlessFatWoman]

Last weekend was my mother’s birthday, so we - that’s me, my parents, sister and BIL and their 12 year-old son - went for Sunday lunch. Unfortunately the food wasn’t great, and they ended up taking my main off the bill.

My dad is someone who always wants to treat everyone, so my sister and I decided this time it was our turn and we were going to treat him and our mum instead. When the bill came, BIL asked if we could split it over two cards, but they said they could only take one payment. He paid and I said I’d transfer my share. For the sake of keeping the maths simple on this thread, let’s say the bill was £210, or £35 per head.

Both BIL and sister are crap at responding to messages, so it took me until midweek to get the bank details. I sent over £70 to cover me and one of my parents.

I heard nothing in response, but I was chatting to my mum earlier and she said “Oh, by the way, Katie said you got the money wrong - it was £210 and you only sent £70”. I said no, that was right - my meal and one other. She said, “Ohhh… I think she thought you were splitting it”. I laughed and said, “No, we said we’d treat you and Dad. I didn’t say I’d pay for three meals!”

I don’t really know why my sister couldn’t just have messaged me instead of talking to our mother about it, but that’s not really the issue. Surely she and BIL don’t expect me to pay half the bill? By treating our parents, I meant exactly that - not that I’d pay for them both while my sister just paid for her own family (which is what this amounts to). There are three of them and one of me. If I pay half the bill, sister and BIL have only covered themselves and their child - there’s no “treating” anyone at all.

AIBU for thinking £70 was my share and paying just that?

OP has discussed what was included in the 'meal' (and taken that into account) in her posts.

Click on 'See all' if you want to check.

I think in principle paying for just yourself and one parent is fine, but have you actually calculated to ensure that paying £70 did in fact cover their cost rather than dividing total bill by number of diners? If your BIL and nephew were not drinking their share was likely lower, maybe more similar to what your own bill was if your main was taken off. I would mentally tot up what your parents' total was and half that plus yours plus service- does the £70 more than cover it? If yes you are fine, if no you are not being fair.

For all those arguing that the op should have paid 50% of the bill how would you feel if it had not been a meal out but instead had been a holiday?

If the agreement had been to treat the parents to a holiday away would you expect the op to pay 50% of the entire holiday bill, meaning that she was paying for herself and her parents on holiday and the sister was only paying for her immediate family unit to go away on holiday?

Would you think that was fair? because that is an exact analogy.

I think this is what some people are thinking OP.

No-one is being obtuse: why do people have to be so rude and aggressive when people put forward a different view?

I don't think anyone cannot understand that there were more people in the Dsis' family. That isn't the insightful mathematical breakthrough some are treating it as.

Some people are thinking that - given the meals out are normally free for them both - the two DDs deciding to cover it this time might just mean the pair of them each pay half - very much along the lines of the cake analogy someone used above. If you had both decided to buy your parents a cake, would you have asked to pay for 2 fifths of the cake OP? (Fine if you might have, but not everyone would). That's where the thinking on the bill is coming from.

I personally don't think that applies the same way in the case of a meal ( thoughI can still accept the pps who are thinking that way have a valid point). I think the Dsis is being cheeky, and I also think almost everyone here must think the Dsis was incomprehensively obnoxious to take this issue to the mother, of all people, instead of OP to resolve - totally undermining the whole treat over £35.

BUT to me there is a further issue that I think is being conflated here with the issue of what the OP "should" have paid, and that is what to do about it given where the op is now at.

Personally, and given the relatively small amount that OP would have to pay to hose down this whole drama, and given her Dad is normally generous and shouts them all, and given the intention was to repay that kindness, I am with the posters who would just suck it up and pay the difference to limit the fallout. That doesn't make people obtuse, it doesn't make them moral narcissists, it doesn't mean they cannot do the maths to figure out that dividing the bill between two only results in a different figure from adding up all family members and dividing by nuclear family.

It's just a different take on where the op should go to from here. That's how discussion forums work, and people need to be more tolerant of alternative views. You can't post and throw a tantrum and name-call when people don't say what you wanted said.

It isn't a better analogy than the cake: it's just a sort of reductio ad absurdum.

The meal sits somewhere between the cake and the holiday imo.

Your sister and BIL are CFs.

I'm in a unit of 3 and my SIL is a unit of 1. If we were talking PIL out for a birthday meal we would split the cost of their meal, not the cost of the total meal. I would be embarrassed to let her pay half of the total meal.

@KnickerlessFatWoman what are you going to do next?

Obviously you said ‘treat your parents’ meaning cover their meals. She interpreted treating your parents as ‘splitting the bill 50/50’. So a misunderstanding. This happens. And 81% of voters agree with you that YANBU. You’ve heard the alternative view, but no need to respond again.

To move it forward, can’t you just say that as you didn’t have to pay for your meal (as it was taken off) and as you both agreed to treat your parents, on this occasion you’ve sent money to cover both your parents share. So that BiL only had to pay for their three meals.

I think Dbil should refund his wife for his and son meal, job done!

The Dbil paid for the meal on his card.

Whatever the rights and wrongs are, I bet you based on OP's DPs previous record of generosity that the net result of this will be that OPs DPs send DSis money to cover the "shortfall". Probably £70, so the bill is equally split in 3rds.

To move it forward, can’t you just say that as you didn’t have to pay for your meal (as it was taken off) and as you both agreed to treat your parents, on this occasion you’ve sent money to cover both your parents share. So that BiL only had to pay for their three meals.

This is a good way forward OP. It leaves it ambiguous as to whether you would have paid for 3 out of 6 meals had yours been charged.

It makes the point you have covered both parents and they only have to pay for themselves - and not cover the parents at all.

If they argue that the cost of your meal coming off should have been shared, you reduce your "outstanding contribution" to half the cost of your meal, not the full £35.

This is what I'd do given you really don't want to pay the full £35. I don't see how they can argue with it.

Sorry, typo op: two sixths.

Why would you pay for your nephew?

Listen to yourself.

No wonder your sis spoke to your mum about it instead of you.

This seems like a misunderstanding- but you are not coming off well in this thread.

I hope your nephew has other thoughtful aunties or uncles in their lives.

Some batshit responses here OP.

You are totally correct in your assumptions. If it was split 50:50 then basically you're paying for both the parents and yourself, and your sister gets off with just paying for her family. It makes no sense whatsoever.

What you paid makes sense.

I’m going to be the one to disagree here. Your dad usually pays for everyone. To me, splitting the bill would be half each and no half of your parents meals. A key learn is discuss it before hand but I would have expected to pay half.

Did you cover any of the tip ? Your drink ? Your parents drinks ?

That wasn’t how the maths was supposed to work! Each sister covers a parent. That is the maths!

The point was that the parents didn’t foot the bill. Which they didn’t. That doesn’t mean a single diner also helps cover the cost of three other people.

This is no where near the same!

Both sisters usually pay zero! In this scenario it’s clearly a miss understanding but it’s not unreasonable to expect to split 50/50. I wouldn’t dream of trying to mentally attribute which party my money covered and resent the thought of paying for my nephew, when I usually pay nothing at all!

Some people have treated the thread as a maths problem, the others treated it as an interpersonal one.

I don't think there is a right or wrong in that, but there is no need to be rude or insulting if others take the different view.

No but it does mean both sisters usually pay zero. All of those lovely meals for free. Op suggested that the sisters pay this time without being clear but expects sister to pay more to cover her family so sis inevitably comes out worse, no matter what. I’m glad that my family doesn’t work like this but I’m clearly in the minority here!

Well said

That cake analogy is not a good one but I can see why some people think it is 😏. You buy the cake for the parents, it’s up to them what they do with it, they might stick it in the cupboard and not cut it for a week. The parents’ dinners are the cake, no one else’s dinner is the cake.

They came out worse? Why? Because they had to cover their own costs for the food and drinks they ordered?

If anyone came out worse it was OP, who paid for two people despite her own meal being removed from the bill.

I’d have made it clear at the start that I was just paying for me and a parent if my brother, his wife and kids were going, but my brother wouldn’t actually need telling. He’d already know that his contribution would be bigger, because he’s got a brain and would know it would be unteasonable to expect me to cover the same cost as him, his wife and his kids.

I tend to agree that a meal falls closer on the spectrum to the holiday analogy, BUT at the end of the day it isn't that hard to envisage a meal out as a "gift."