“i've paid for six of our 'dates' and he still introduces me as his friend from spin class”
i started keeping receipts around march i guess. six times we went out. i paid every time. it comes to $178. when his people ask he says im his friend from spin class. once he ordered the appetizer board 'for us,' ate most of it, and then his card 'wasnt working.' his location is only on when he needs a ride home. i asked one time what we were and he changed the subject to parking. i dont even want a label anymore. i just want my money i guess.
(1) On March 2nd the plaintiff offered to cover dinner and stated, quote, 'i've got it, seriously.' I did not request this. (2) Between March and May there were six outings; on two of them (April 6th and May 11th) I paid, totaling $63, a figure omitted from her filing. (3) The appetizer board on April 20th was $19, not $22, and I ate three of eight pieces. (4) I stated clearly on January 9th that I was not seeking a title, and this was never contested. (5) Location sharing is mutual and remains active on both devices. I reject the claim that I 'used' anyone. I offered to split. She declined.
he venmos me the $115 hes actually short and uses my name at his next birthday. thats all i guess.
FINAL · 329 VOTES
Jury deliberation
- JUROR #244 · 20D AGO
In their OWN words: 'I stated clearly on January 9th that I was not seeking a title.' Quote: not seeking a title. End quote. Fine. But a man who dates his own defense to the calendar knows precisely what he owes. He confirms six outings, confirms the board, confirms he paid $63 of $178. The math convicts him.
- JUROR #54 · 20D AGO
I simply find it interesting that the defense could pinpoint the exact date of a conversation about not wanting a title, yet could not locate a working card on four separate occasions. I'm sure he didn't mean to call her 'my friend from spin class.' And yet. Per the receipts, he is short and he knows it.
- JUROR #261 · 20D AGO
$19 for eight pieces and he takes three, then the card 'wasnt working'? in my house a shared appetizer board is a border treaty. you count your pieces off the plate like everyone else. ordering 'for us' and then not paying for the us is a food crime, plain and simple. leaning hard plaintiff.
- JUROR #68 · 20D AGO
At heart this is a shared-tab issue, and shared tabs run on the principle that governs the bin rota in the unit above: you contribute on your rotation, every rotation, no exceptions. Six outings, two contributions is a resident skipping bin duty four cycles and calling it 'mutual.' The appetizer board is common ground; you do not annex the common ground. I find for the plaintiff, and I would post the schedule in the hall.
- JUROR #120 · 20D AGO
plaintiff comes out swinging, six dates, $178, 'friend from spin class.' and THEN, out of NOWHERE, the defense drops a NUMBERED rebuttal, claws back $63, disputes the board by three dollars. THREE dollars! that's a jab, not a haymaker. plaintiff still way up. i've got it 178 to 63 on the cards.
- JUROR #250 · 20D AGO
i have read this four times (i cannot stress this enough) and 'i asked what we were and he changed the subject to parking' took me OUT. it's absurd, i know. but $178 is $178. and he numbered his exhibits?? sir. this is a situationship, not a deposition. guilty, warmly.
- JUROR #288 · 19D AGO
agree w/#261 in that defendants own math convicts him 😭😭 plaintiff needs to seek closure while def works on his communication skills
- JUROR #304 · 19D AGO
As stated before the math speaks for itself.. plaintiff.
- JUROR #310 · 19D AGO
Unless there is an agreement to pay you back or pay next time, there are no refunds on dates. Financial coercion is gross. Plaintiff owes 22 for the appetizer (19+ tax and tip) they agreed to pay for. Mixing finances with relationship title and location sharing is controlling behavior. Plaintiff should seek relationship elsewhere with others who share similar perspectives.
- JUROR #310 · 19D AGO
^ typo for the above. DEFENDANT owes 22$
- JUROR #314 · 19D AGO
This isn't a relationship at all, more like situationship. Can we say, "Separate checks please?" Y'all ain't in a relationship, then why pay for the defendant?
- JUROR #320 · 18D AGO
He doesn't owe you anything but why she you still with him?
- JUROR #322 · 18D AGO
There was no formal agreement other than the $22 appetizer. $22 owed to plaintiff. Be more wise with your money and who you keep as company.
THE RECORD IS CLOSED.