Diner Who Paid Exact Share Of Birthday Meal Says Friends' Silence Is Disproportionate
A man who declined to split a £612 birthday dinner bill nine ways, paying £15.75 for a risotto and service, says his friends' decision to stop speaking to him is out of proportion to what he consumed.
News Intro
A friendship group of nine has stopped communicating with one of its members after he declined to split the bill for a birthday dinner, paying instead for the single dish he ordered and its share of the service charge.
The bill, for a Saturday evening meal to mark a friend's fortieth birthday, came to £612 including a 12.5% discretionary service charge. The group's proposal was that the eight guests divide it equally and cover the birthday guest, at £76.50 each.
The man, who is saving for a deposit on a flat, paid £15.75. This represented a wild mushroom risotto at £14 and £1.75 in service. He drank tap water.
Members of the group have not replied to his messages for nine days. He describes this as disproportionate.
The Diner's Account
Paid for what I ate at a group dinner. Group chat has gone quiet. How do I handle this?
Posting here because I think people on this forum will understand the maths.
Background. I'm 34, I've been saving for a deposit for three years and I track everything. Not in a weird way. I just know where my money goes, which I think should be normal and is apparently not.
My friend turned 40 and eight of us took her out. I'd suggested the restaurant because it's reasonable if you order properly. Not everyone ordered properly. Before I'd sat down there were cocktails, then two sharing boards, then three bottles of wine, one of which was £58, which nobody asked the table about.
I had the risotto (£14) and tap water. I wasn't sulking. It's a good risotto.
When the bill came someone said "let's just do £76.50 each and get Hannah's". I said I'd pay for mine. I said it calmly. I showed the receipt on my phone so nobody thought I was rounding in my favour. Risotto £14, service £1.75, total £15.75.
People will say I had some of the starters. I had two calamari rings and a piece of focaccia, because they were put in front of me. I offered £2 for that and nobody took it, which I think says something. There was also half a glass of prosecco when we did the toast. That was ceremonial. You can't charge someone for a toast. I didn't finish it.
If I'd ordered the £58 wine and then said "let's split it", everyone would agree I was the problem. Why is it different when someone else does it?
The table sorted itself out. I don't know exactly how. The waiter came back with the card machine and it went round and that was that.
The next morning I photographed the itemised receipt and put it into a spreadsheet for the group chat. For transparency, and because two people had said things on the way out that made me think there was confusion about the numbers. The spreadsheet just showed what each person had. It wasn't a judgement. It did show that one person was at £118 if you assign the wine fairly, and that splitting equally meant she'd been subsidised by roughly half the table, including me if I'd agreed. I suggested people might want to reconcile between themselves. I didn't ask for anything back. I'd already paid the correct amount.
Since then nothing. The chat that used to be about forty messages a day has had zero. I'm fairly sure there's a new one.
Some people have said I should have just covered Hannah's share because it was her birthday. I'd have been happy to contribute towards her meal if it had been itemised. It was itemised, as it turns out, it's on the spreadsheet (steak, £32), but nobody was asking for that, they were asking for £76.50.
And before anyone brings it up, yes, at my birthday in March the group paid for me. I didn't choose what got ordered that night. I was a guest. Guests don't do the bill. That's the whole point of a guest.
I've been told I'm tight. I'm not tight. I'm accurate. I'd just like to know how to get things back to normal without paying for wine I didn't drink.
What The Receipt Shows
The itemised receipt, seen by this newspaper, broadly supports the man's figures for his own order. It lists one wild mushroom risotto and one jug of tap water, for which no charge was made.
It also lists two sharing boards, three bottles of wine, eleven cocktails, nine glasses of prosecco and a birthday dessert served to the table with nine spoons.
Several guests confirmed that the shortfall left by his payment, £60.75, was not divided among the remaining seven. It was paid at the card machine by the woman whose birthday it was, who told the waiter it was "fine, honestly" and asked whether anyone needed a lift.
Asked about the evening, she said she had had a lovely time up until the bill, and a mostly lovely time afterwards. She said she had stopped reading the spreadsheet at the row containing her own steak.
The friend identified in the spreadsheet as having consumed £118 said she had ordered the £58 bottle "for the table", which she had believed the table understood. She said she would have happily covered his share herself had he mentioned at any point during three hours that he was worried about money.
The man said he had not been worried about money. He said he had been worried about the principle, which was different, and which he had raised at the correct time, when the bill arrived.
Expert Analysis
From a loss-adjusting perspective his apportionment is sound. Each party bears the loss it caused, and on the documents he caused £15.75 of it. Where I would part company with him is the calamari and the prosecco. We would normally treat those as minor contributory items, and the error is not their value but his decision to exclude them from a schedule he prepared himself. Once you've circulated the schedule, you're held to it.
Groups that split equally are not really paying for food. They are paying to avoid having a conversation about food. He has correctly identified that this is inefficient. What he hasn't identified is that, for most people at the table, the inefficiency was the point. The silence he is describing is not a dispute over £60.75.
Fares And Fairness
The railway solved this decades ago with split ticketing. A passenger who buys separate tickets for each leg of a journey can travel on the same train, in the same seat, for considerably less, and nobody in the carriage is any the wiser. That is the critical difference. On a train, you do not show everyone your working.
Reader Reaction
u/CompoundingQuietly · 21408 points · 6h ago
I came in fully expecting to be on your side. I've been the tap water person subsidising someone's espresso martinis. Then the birthday girl paid the difference herself and you didn't even know.
u/Leftover_Focaccia_7 · 17330 points · 6h ago
"I offered £2 for that and nobody took it, which I think says something." It does say something but not what you think.
u/ISA_Allowance_Anxiety · 11962 points · 6h ago
Honestly paying for what you ordered is fine. Lots of people do it. The bit that ended this was the spreadsheet, not the risotto.
u/MarginalUtilityMark · 9471 points · 6h ago
Small correction, discretionary service charge is discretionary. If he's being accurate he could have legally paid £14. He chose to pay the extra £1.75 and nobody is giving him credit for it.
u/Tuesday_Tap_Water · 8115 points · 6h ago
nobody is giving him credit for the £1.75 because of the other £60.75
u/HalfAGlassOnly · 6240 points · 6h ago
Genuine question, did the group pay for his birthday in March at £76.50 a head or whatever it was? Because if so the spreadsheet should probably have a second tab.
u/DepositByThirtyFive · 4388 points · 6h ago
Saving for a deposit is hard and people who aren't doing it forget how much these dinners cost. I'd still have chipped in for her though. It was her 40th.
Community Poll
Community Poll
Latest reader breakdown
Who should have covered the £60.75?
Update
The man has since returned to the forum to say he has transferred £4 to the birthday guest.
He said this covered the two calamari rings, the focaccia and, on reflection, the half-glass of prosecco. He has received a thumbs-up in reply. He is treating this as a reopening of communications and has asked the forum whether it would be appropriate, at this stage, to mention the new chat.
Topics