On June 5, you agreed to accept dinner, paid for in full, by me, based on your stated offer that we would go out again. In that you have ignored all overtures to said follow up meeting, you are hereby considered in breach of contract.
To that end, you are being invoiced for 50% of the cost of the dinner, pursuant to the offer. For the record, the offer presented you with the option of not going out again and paying for half of the dinner, or going out again and not paying at all. You accepted these terms, choosing to go out again, as stated above, but have since failed to deliver your end of the agreement. In that this was merely a promise to meet, and not a promise to marry, the agreement is binding under New York law and does not require a written agreement (i.e. statute of frauds).
Furthermore, this is absolutely not a joke.
Your share is 50% of $74.51 which is a total of $37.25. Payment in full is expected within 30 days.
posted
Well if you're making good money in the city $75 isn't that much. It's all relative. And away, an appetizer, 2 entrees and maybe 2 glasses of wine or a cheap bottle and you're there. And not even at a really nice place.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it would be really uptight if he had itemized the bill. At least he only divided by two, and he gave her the benifit on the rounding off the odd cent.
posted
I never got why anyone would pay for someone else that they weren't romantically involved with.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've covered for friends pretty often as well as been covered by friends at times when I didn't have money. I don't think romantic involvement is the only time it's necessary to pay for someone else.
unless you were being facetious. and i missed it...
Cause i hope parents aren't romantically involved with their kids. But they sure do pay for stuff alot.
posted
It says she agreed to go out with a second time before the first date even started. That doesn't excuse what the guy is doing, but that's weird.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
This is in reference to your letter of June 17 regarding our date of June 5 (the Letter). My acceptance of your offer to pay for dinner constituted the formation of a contract, in which you promised to pay for dinner and I promised to provide company during said dinner. My offer to go out again was not induced by your paying for dinner; it was either an invitation to offer a second dinner or a gratuitous promise lacking consideration. In neither case is this second dinner an enforceable promise under New York law.
Further, even if a contract was formed, there was fraudulent misrepresentation upon which I relied in accepting your offer for dinner. When you asked me out to dinner, you specifically said we would have a good time. Being that you are a miserable twit (as evinced by the Letter), a good time was not had. Your breach of this promise is sufficient to rescind the contract.
Sincerely:
[WOMAN'S NAME AND ADDRESS]
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kind of assumed that when the bill came, they discussed who would pay. His offer to pay "this time" if she paid next time, might be what he is talking about. However, if he ivited her out on a date, then sprang the "dutch treat" part of it, she might not have had cash to cover "her share." At that point and time, she was probably pretty pissed and agreed to his plan because a) she had no choice, and/or b) he is a jackass and deserved it.
Anyway, that was just my thought.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
