large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

BarryBlue

Person_one wrote: »

that's not really asking though, is it? No pressure in that wording at all! :rotfl:

Why not just be prepared to pay for what you have, and if it turns out that everybody orders similarly and there's not much in it you could suggest splitting the bill then, once it's obvious nobody will be taken advantage of or taking advantage by doing so?

You really, really don't get this, do you?

Friends don't take advantage of each other, why on earth do you keep insisting they do? Maybe your friends are very different from ours.;)

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Seriously?

You expect your friends to invite you along to every meal they eat, every film they go to see, every gig they go to?:eek:

I'm afraid that sounds more like a stalker than a friend!

I agree with this. We do different things with different groups of friends. For instance, we have friends who we only see at music gigs which are generally about 50 miles away. We don't dine with them, we just listen to music over a few drinks. And we don't take other friends, it is a different social circle. Maybe some people have very limited groups of friends.

missbiggles1

BarryBlue wrote: »

You really, really don't get this, do you?

Friends don't take advantage of each other, why on earth do you keep insisting they do? Maybe your friends are very different from ours.;)


I agree with this. We do different things with different groups of friends. For instance, we have friends who we only see at music gigs which are generally about 50 miles away. We don't dine with them, we just listen to music over a few drinks. And we don't take other friends, it is a different social circle. Maybe some people have very limited groups of friends.

I don't even think it's just that because I certainly have a very limited group of friends.:o

For many people in a relationship, the most common option is to do things as a couple, occasionally adding others in where the sociability factor is high, like going for a drink. Personally, I don't think it ever occurred to us to suggest going to a film, theatre or gig with anybody else because (apart from 15 minute interval) you aren't actually socialising, you're just staring straight ahead at the film, stage or music.

ETA
Just reread your post. I can see it might be different if you were going to some kind of music club or venue - I was thinking more along the lines of a concert rather than a club gig.:)

onlyroz

BarryBlue wrote: »

Friends don't take advantage of each other, why on earth do you keep insisting they do? Maybe your friends are very different from ours.;)

Shouldn't it be obvious from this thread that "friends" do often take advantage of each other? Just because you are utterly unable to imagine a scenario where one of your party is unhappy to pay for more than they have eaten doesn't mean that it never happens.


How about if one of your friends of 20+ years contracted an illness that massively reduced their appetite and meant that they couldn't drink alcohol. If they joined you for a group dinner and only ordered a small main dish and a glass of orange juice, would you still then expect them to contribute as if they'd eaten a full three-course meal plus wine and cocktails?

Person_one

BarryBlue wrote: »

You really, really don't get this, do you?

Friends don't take advantage of each other, why on earth do you keep insisting they do? Maybe your friends are very different from ours.;)

Well, mine don't, but 'friends' who eat £50 worth of food while their companion eats £30 worth, and then expect to pay £40 each are taking advantage, especially if it works out that way around pretty much every time.

After all these posts, I still don't never stand why some are so unwilling to pay for what they actually order, but I do understand why they are so determined to make that unwillingness out to be a character flaw on the part of those who are!

BarryBlue

Person_one wrote: »

Well, mine don't, but 'friends' who eat £50 worth of food while their companion eats £30 worth, and then expect to pay £40 each are taking advantage, especially if it works out that way around pretty much every time.

After all these posts, I still don't never stand why some are so unwilling to pay for what they actually order, but I do understand why they are so determined to make that unwillingness out to be a character flaw on the part of those who are!

As I said, you still don't get it.:doh: Nobody is suggesting the situation which you are constructing. Other people can do whatever they want, but we are all happy as we are. I just wonder why you have this ludicrous idea that I am unwilling to pay for what I have. You have no idea.

onlyroz

BarryBlue wrote: »

As I said, you still don't get it.:doh: Nobody is suggesting the situation which you are constructing. Other people can do whatever they want, but we are all happy as we are. I just wonder why you have this ludicrous idea that I am unwilling to pay for what I have. You have no idea.

Plenty of people have said that they do exactly what Person_one suggested. Other hilarious suggestions on this thread include:


- Their meal is "ruined" unless everybody orders the same number of courses
- People should order more food than they want just to be polite even if it means that most of the food will be wasted
- People who only want, and are only willing to pay for, one course would be better off just staying at home
- Unless your dining companion has a plate of food in-front of them, they are obviously miserable and would rather be somewhere else

Person_one

BarryBlue wrote: »

As I said, you still don't get it.:doh: Nobody is suggesting the situation which you are constructing. Other people can do whatever they want, but we are all happy as we are. I just wonder why you have this ludicrous idea that I am unwilling to pay for what I have. You have no idea.

Ok, I don't get it. Please explain to me how splitting the bill equally when what people have actually ordered varies in cost doesn't result in some paying too much and some paying too little.

Georgiegirl256

Sorry, quoted wrong person.

Georgiegirl256

onlyroz wrote: »

How about if one of your friends of 20+ years contracted an illness that massively reduced their appetite and meant that they couldn't drink alcohol. If they joined you for a group dinner and only ordered a small main dish and a glass of orange juice, would you still then expect them to contribute as if they'd eaten a full three-course meal plus wine and cocktails?

I notice this question has been asked a few times now, but funnily enough, not answered! :think:

Jagraf

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

I notice this question has been asked a few times now, but funnily enough, not answered! :think:

I can't speak for everyone else but if I was the one who had caught an illness / didn't drink alcohol / had a small plate etc I would still expect to pay the same as everyone else. That has been my experience too (and what I have been most comfortable with).

If someone offered that I pay less then I would say no.

Please don't say it is "sad" as it has in no way affected my friendship circles or my relationships with my relatives or my colleagues.

In my experience all my friends / colleagues / relatives have done exactly the same if they have eaten less or haven't had a drink. It's something that just doesn't happen, in my experience.