“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.
Who's right?
Jury deliberation
- JUROR #244 · 11H 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 · 9H 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 · 8H 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 · 7H 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 · 5H 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 · 5H 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.