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?

The really sad thing here is that OPs parents sound really generous, yet their daughters are quibbling over the bill, with both wanting to use the calculation method that means they pay the least. Not a drop of generosity in either of thrm :(

No, the entire bill is not ‘their share’. Choosing to be generous in covering everyone’s share is not the same thing as the entire bill being ‘their share’. Their share is their orders, and that is what OP and her sister agreed to split.

I suspect the sister is fully aware of this too, because if she truly misunderstood the agreement then why wouldn’t she have addressed it with OP rather than with their mother?

You would really expect your single sister to go 50/50 with your family of three? Lol, okay.

@Birdsongsinging

its simple really. @KnickerlessFatWoman & her sister agreed to treat their parents, so each would pay half….. sister brought 2 extra people with her, OP brought just herself….. so the sister should obviously pay for the 2 extra people she brought to the meal. One of these extras is a man who works so he should pay for his own meal!

OP generously paid more than her fair share, considering her order was removed from the bill. The sister is whining because she had to pay for her own family. The horror.

OP wasn’t the one who complained though. It was her sister and brother in law who both have income. She happily paid into the pot and they are saying she didn’t fork over enough because she only contributed partially to their good time.

I’m afraid @KnickerlessFatWoman cant post now or she’d have been back. I’m bummed. I like her.

I think OP has been fair, she’s paid for her meal and 50% of her parents meal.
the sister and BIL both who work can not surely be expecting OP to pay for one of their meals? Or for their child’s meal?

Lets reframe this….

so what if OP’s sister had 4 children and her DH….. so there was 6 of them… would OP as 1 person then be expected to pay for 4 and half people even though she’s only supposed to be treating one parent and her sister the other?!

YANBU

Given that your meal was taken off the bill, you are being astonishingly generous to pay as much as £70 - you should be paying less because the compensation for your crap meal belongs to you alone, whereas by simplifying it to £35pp you are generously sharing your compensation with your whole family.

There were 6 people there. Your Sister is responsible for paying for herself, her husband and child, plus a 50% contribution to treating your parents, so she should be paying for 4 people. You are responsible only for yourself and for the other 50% contribution to treating your parents, so you should be paying for 2 people.

Your sister is being a ridiculous CF if she thinks you should be paying any more than you already have.

Or I'm the single person who would happily pay for 50% of a meal out that my generous parents would otherwise have paid for in full!

In fact, I'm not in the exact situation of either sibling, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be quibbling over the bill for parents so generous.

That said, I'm coming from the position of both financial comfort, and having recently lost both of my lovely, generous parents and I'd give anything to have them here once more so I could have the privilege of picking up the bill for a family meal with them.

100%
so weird that people don’t get this.

if DSIS was a single parent of 2 children I might be saying OP could be generous and pay for one of the children, but DSIS is married and their household has 2 incomes… I don’t understand why DSIS feels entitled to a free meal at her single sisters expense

OP wants to pay for herself and one parent.
Dsis only wants to pay for herself and her family and have OP pay for both parents. It's not the same.

I can actually see both sides. I do think OP is reasonable but given that the ambiguity is possible, it should have been discussed properly beforehand.

OP is regarding her sister and BIL as being fully responsible for paying for the food they consumed and so if that's all they pay for they have contributed nothing.

However, if the parents had hosted all six people at a meal at their own home, paying for all the food and wine themselves, would OP feel that her parents have been 3 times as generous to her sister as to her, and feel hard-done-by? And if the parents had decided to pay the whole bill at the restaurant would OP feel that her parents have been 3 times as generous to her sister as to her, and feel hard-done-by?

According to OP's position, each non-grandparent adult pays for themselves and any children as the basic minimum of paying their own way, and the remaining cost of including the grandparents is split 50:50, and the gift is the actual food and drink the grandparents consumed. According to the sister's position, the "gift" is the entire experience of having the whole family gathered and enjoying time together, the cost of which has previously been fully funded by the grandparents. Within that understanding, the "gift" of fully funding the whole £210 experience is rightly divided 50:50 so £105 each.

Both understandings are valid so both sisters were unreasonable not to clarify what was meant in advance..

We have a similar situation in our own wider family but I just keep quiet because the sister who is benefitting takes massive offence if anyone suggests she might pay a little more due to having more children. Her family represents 38% of the people who eat at these gatherings (and all are old enough to consume full sized adult portions and the kids drink "mocktails" that are just as expensive as wine) and she pays 33% of the bill. My other sibling and I each have smaller families representing 23% of the people present and yet we each also pay 33% of the bill. But if it sits right with her conscience to freeload I'm not going to change her mind by complaining about it.

OP didn’t quibble. She sent over the amount that (more than) covered what she agreed to. The only person quibbling is the sister.

Paying for the sister’s family is hardly a treat for the parents. The treat is that the parents meals were covered, and each sister sorted out their own respective bills. It’s really very simple.

Being able to afford something is irrelevant. I will happily cover the bill for my family at times, and either my brother or parents will cover it at other times. It’s up to us to offer though, and not something that is expected or taken as a given. If it was expected of me ‘because I can afford it’ I would not do it, and nor would they if it was expected of them. It’s never been a problem because we don’t look to take advantage of one another. Being able to /= obliged to.

But OP ISN'T quibbling over being generous to her parents! She's not suggesting her parents should lose out in any way. OP paying more for the meal doesn't mean her parents gain anything - they don't pay for anyone and get their meals paid for either way. The only argument is with her sister.

Her sister, on the other hand, is only being "generous" in the sense of covering her own family's costs. Yes, it means the parents aren't paying for them for a change, but she isn't paying anything towards her parents' costs either - OP is.

However, if the parents had hosted all six people at a meal at their own home, paying for all the food and wine themselves, would OP feel that her parents have been 3 times as generous to her sister as to her, and feel hard-done-by? And if the parents had decided to pay the whole bill at the restaurant would OP feel that her parents have been 3 times as generous to her sister as to her, and feel hard-done-by?

But that isn't relevant. It's the choice of OP's parents if and when they want to treat everyone. OP doesn't lose out on anything because her sister is married with a child; she still gets treated. And you certainly can't compare someone hosting a meal at home to someone else treating THEM to a restaurant meal. It's ridiculous.

But whether at home or a restaurant, if OP's parents are paying, it's up to them who they pat for what. OP doesn't lose anything by way of the parents paying for her sister, BIL and nephew. She does, however, lose something if she pays for both parents when her sister pays nothing.

Some PP have picked up on the very relevant point that OP isnt the one doing the quibbling. OP promptly paid a fair amount. And not only has the sister quibbled this- she has created a whole drama by doing so via her mother. And (presumably) this is after discussing with her DH who could have intervened and said “Hang on! Are we being scroungers here?”.

To have this brass a neck both DS and BIL must be very experienced CFs.

This , you technically only needed to pay for one meal .

OP - show your relatives this thread! (If you haven’t already!)

I understood you perfectly and I'm in agreement with you, OP. You did not agree to cover your sister's family's meal

The op had a starter, dessert + wine as well. Plus coffee? Service?

The OP was more than generous in putting up with not having a proper meal

She didn't put up with it - she complained about her main course at the restaurant.

The OP is already paying 50% of her parents' bill. If OP had other family members on her side she would have paid for them as well. Why should she also pay for some of her sister's share?

It's still a rotten experience though - and she happily passed the saving on to the rest of the party. You want her to pay for another meal on top of that!

The op said the food wasn't great for everyone - perhaps the others suffered in silence.

and she happily passed the saving on to the rest of the party

If the op had a starter, dessert, wine + service (plus coffee? + sides to her main course?) - how much under £35 was her share in any case?

That was their choice, and hardly something OP needs to compensate them for.

They could have returned their food as well if they found it substandard, but instead they ate it. Thus they were required to pay for it.

OP covered an entire extra share without complaint, when her own meal was removed from the bill. If she truly wanted to quibble and just pay for one parent and herself, she could have done so.