large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

cadon

I think we're at the point now where all this thread is proving is that many of us who post here would absolutely hate to eat out with each other!

onlyroz

silvercar wrote: »

If you are choosing to only have the soup because money is tight, I would prefer we go to a cheaper restaurant and you eat a full meal.

Big difference in my eyes between someone who doesn't eat because they don't want to spend the money and someone who doesn't eat because their appetite is smaller. Would rather go to a restaurant where everyone can afford to it and does eat.

Sometimes just getting out the house for a bit and seeing your friends is fun enough if you're on a tight budget. Why assume that somebody who chooses a small dish for financial reasons is miserable or would prefer to go somewhere cheaper?

I have a friend who always brings a packed lunch with her on days out even if the rest of the group chooses to go to a cafe, because her income is low. We'd all prefer that she did this rather than her not come along at all.

Georgiegirl256

silvercar wrote: »

More likely I will be the one that will have eaten less and paid more than my share of the food. But you are making assumptions that anyone wanting an equal bill split must be consuming more.
.

You're right. I did assume that you were the bigger consumer (just going by your posts) apologies if this isn't the case.

I guess you don't mind paying the extra.

Cadon, ain't that the truth lol!

Jagraf

Just wondering whether instead of alternating eating at each other's houses, my sis in law and us should do 2:1 as she had three times more kids. :cool:

onlyroz

Jagraf wrote: »

Just wondering whether instead of alternating eating at each other's houses, my sis in law and us should do 2:1 as she had three times more kids. :cool:

We cook more for my parents than they do for us, including cooking the last seven Christmas dinners for them (which is good because they are terrible cooks). However, they do other things for us like babysit, or look after the kids during the holidays, so in general it evens itself out.

Perhaps in years to come this hoard of kids will become adults, and they'll start inviting Auntie/Uncle Jagraf round for din dins.

Jagraf

onlyroz wrote: »

We cook more for my parents than they do for us, including cooking the last seven Christmas dinners for them (which is good because they are terrible cooks). However, they do other things for us like babysit, or look after the kids during the holidays, so in general it evens itself out.

Perhaps in years to come this hoard of kids will become adults, and they'll start inviting Auntie/Uncle Jagraf round for din dins.

They only have three lol - but it all equals up in the end as you say, which is why we just split the bill down the middle when we go out. I wouldn't dream of them paying more for their two extra kids :eek:

duchy

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I wouldn't expect someone who was feeling ill to be so stupid as to go out for a meal at all. Nothing to do with what they did or didn't eat but because of the risk of throwing up and spoiling the occasion, not only for their party but for everybody else in the restaurant!

I wouldn't have so little concern for others' feelings as to take that risk.

I guess you must be one of those people with a delicate stomach .
Plenty of people have more robust constitutions and are quite capable of not upchucking just because they aren't feeling 100% however they'd also not to stuff themselves with three courses and wine just because a "friend" insists they do. The fact you want to exclude a "friend" from a social occasion if they can't stuff themselves the way you want to probably says more about your idea of friendship than anything else. My way (of eating) or the highway appears to be your attitude.

It's clear that to some people on this thread they have a very strong emotional connection related to food and see other people's lack of investment in that connection as some kind of social rejection of themselves. It's really fascinating..

Jagraf

duchy wrote: »

So if they were feeling unwell, not so bad they needed to stay home but couldn't face food.....you'd prefer them to cancel solely because they'd be sipping water or Coke whilst you ate and that to you isn't socially acceptable?

Quite thankful my friends don't have such high expectations of me but just enjoy my company.

Personally I would find it awkward going for a meal if my meal partner didnt want to eat. A bit like going to see a film with someone who didn't want to see a film. I would probably try to find something we could both share in.

balletshoes

Jagraf wrote: »

Personally I would find it awkward going for a meal if my meal partner didnt want to eat. A bit like going to see a film with someone who didn't want to see a film. I would probably try to find something we could both share in.

I wouldn't find that awkward if there were a few of us there for a meal and one wasn't eating though.

missbiggles1

Person_one wrote: »

But...in most restaurants there can still be a huge difference between the cheaper and the more expensive options, and he still the possibility having fewer or more courses (although clearly you disapprove of that!)

I'm just puzzled about how all these people who purport to be skint can order a la carte - I can count the occasions when I've done this on one hand because it' such an expensive way to order.