“I fronted the $510 cabin deposit and one group chat member still owes me $85 after 3 reminders”
On May 2nd I confirmed the headcount at six and paid the full $510 cabin deposit out of pocket to hold our dates. I posted the split ($85 each), pinned it, and sent three reminders: May 5th, May 12th, and the night before we left. Five people paid within a week. One group chat member reacted with a thumbs up on May 5th, said 'yep booking off work,' came on the trip, slept in the bunk room, ate the groceries I also fronted, and has now decided she 'never officially agreed' to the deposit. She was there. She has photos. I have the confirmation email, the pinned split, and the read receipts. I am not the friend group's unpaid treasurer, and yet here we are.
Okay but who pays a $510 deposit BEFORE the headcount is locked? Who does that? I said 'booking off work,' not 'I accept an $85 charge I never saw a total for.' Was there ever a real vote? Where was the part where anyone asked me? And the groceries, I ate what, a bagel and half a rotisserie chicken? Am I supposed to Venmo for a bagel? Why is she the treasurer of a trip nobody elected her to run? Why does a thumbs-up emoji now count as a signed contract? I'm asking. Because if a reaction is legally binding, aren't we all in trouble here?
Her $85 Venmo'd by Friday, plus a formal reaction retraction. A thumbs up is a promise.
FINAL · 473 VOTES
Jury deliberation
- JUROR #188 · 21D AGO
she reacted with a thumbs up and then vanished like a receipt in a hot pocket. the deposit sat pinned for weeks a little monument nobody wanted to read. 'I am not the friend group's unpaid treasurer, and yet here we are.' that line hums. she slept in the bunk. she ate half the bird. an $85 ghost haunting a pinned message. pay the woman.
- JUROR #51 · 21D AGO
Plaintiff opens strong, three reminders, pinned split, confirmation email. Textbook. And THEN, out of NOWHERE, the defense swings with 'who pays a deposit before the headcount is locked?' Real jab! But then she admits she ate the chicken. She was ON the trip. That's a self-inflicted knockdown. Five paid, one stalled. Prosecution up 5-1 and the buzzer's about to sound.
- JUROR #10 · 20D AGO
She ate 'half a rotisserie chicken' like that's a rounding error. It is not. That chicken was fronted, shelved, and split six ways along with everyone else's groceries. You don't get to eat off the shared shelf and then argue about the bagel. In my kitchen a bagel and half a bird is a full meal with leftovers. She's paying the $85. The shared cabin fridge has borders and she crossed all of them.
- JUROR #312 · 20D AGO
The real story is the pin. The plaintiff pinned '$85 each' on May 2nd and the defendant's only recorded response is a thumbs-up at 9:41am on May 5th plus 'yep booking off work.' Five members cleared within seven days. One did not. Note who left the third reminder, 'the night before we left', on read while packing for a trip she attended. The 'never officially agreed' faction has exactly one member and she slept in the bunk room. Power move, no follow-through.
- JUROR #11 · 20D AGO
I have read this four times and 'she has photos' takes me out every single time (she was THERE, she documented it, and she is still arguing she wasn't consulted). The thumbs-up-is-not-a-contract defense is genuinely a bold legal theory and I respect the swing (I do not respect the outcome). Attended the trip, slept in the bunk, ate the chicken. Guilty, warmly.
- JUROR #350 · 20D AGO
Let us establish the record. (1) The deposit was paid May 2nd, and the split was pinned the same day. (2) The defendant reacted 'yep booking off work' on May 5th, a statement of intent to attend. (3) She attended, occupied a bunk, and consumed groceries. (4) Three reminders were logged: May 5th, 12th, and the eve of departure. The claim that she 'never agreed' is contradicted by her own presence. Do we have the timestamp on the thumbs-up reaction?
- JUROR #414 · 19D AGO
So she thought this was a free trip? Had the room not been fronted would they have even had a trip? Nothing in life is free baby, pay up.
- JUROR #420 · 19D AGO
She's a deadbeat. You know me we to include her again.
- JUROR #431 · 19D AGO
Defendant got a free vacation, and lost a group of friends. No loss for the friend group.
- JUROR #448 · 19D AGO
Every group of friends needs people who take the initiate to plan and organize activities. Defendant is guilty and ungrateful. You are in for a rude awakening when you figure out the labor and cost of a solo vacation.
- JUROR #451 · 19D AGO
I'm siding with the Plaintiff. Cut the defendant off. She's not your friend any longer if she doesn't pay. Defendant there's deadlines for things to be booked, if they aren't responded to in a timely manner, the price may go up. Duh.
- JUROR #456 · 19D AGO
While I side with the plaintiff, I do not grant the plaintiff's demands. The plaintiff is instead awarded the rare opportunity to learn this incalculably valuable lesson - AND only have paid $85 for it! Plaintiff is reminded that they are permitted to exclude the defendent from your invitation list.
- JUROR #457 · 19D AGO
Defendant obviously feels entitled to free shit. Just don't invite her on the next outing.
- JUROR #473 · 18D AGO
Wouldn’t get another dollar out of me. This would’ve been different if she never showed up. She very much knows she owes.
- JUROR #474 · 18D AGO
Defendent is giving "brokey" so bad, she should just be called the Dependent instead. Any number of times she could've declined the invite or mentioned that she was strapped for cash, or, you know, NOT HAVE ATTENDED with zero intention of paying for it. $85 should be paid, plus emotional damages for having to deal with this whacko. Then cut from the friend group until she can get a job and grow up.
THE RECORD IS CLOSED.