During their conversation, the man disclosed that he trades his sales goods for free meals at the establishment, meaning neither party was expected to pay a traditional bill. After the date, the OP decided there was no romantic connection and informed the man she would not see him again. The man then demanded that the OP pay for her half of the meal, claiming it was customary for a woman who ends things after one date, leading to the OP’s confusion over financial responsibility.
I went to go meet a guy for a first date at a restaurant that he chose. We met in the parking lot and he had a medium sized box with him. When I asked what it was he said that it was work related and the restaurant owners were clients of his.
He was a salesman for something. He disappeared for about 15 minutes while I was being seated. It was a bit awkward to be sitting at the table alone for the first 15 minutes while he double booked our date with work.
When we sat down, we chatted a lot. He wasn’t ready to order for the first 30 minutes we were at the table. I decided to be a good sport about it, even though I had been sitting at the table now for 45 minutes and hadn’t ordered anything but water yet.
During the chatting, he admitted to me he trades goods for free meals at the restaurant. If for example the goods he is selling is worth $100 retail, the restaurant will give him a meal worth the same.
He said that the cost of the goods are much lower than the actual retail price, just as the cost to the restaurant for the meal is lower than the menu price. It made sense.
We ate, and for a few reasons other than the meal trade, I had decided we weren’t rightfor one another. The following day when he texted me, I let him know that I didn’t feel a spark, and I would not be seeing him again.
He then told me I owed him money for my half of the meal. He said it was customary if a woman decides it’s a 1 time thing to have paid for her own meal. I would (sort of) agree, but in this case, he didn’t even pay for the meal at all, so I’m not sure…
Conclusion
The core conflict revolves around differing expectations regarding payment for a meal during a first date, especially when the arrangement involved a trade rather than a direct purchase. The OP felt no obligation to pay because the man never incurred a cost himself, viewing the situation as a mutual experience where no money was exchanged. The man, however, seems to be applying a social rule about ending dates prematurely, despite the unique circumstances of the restaurant trade.
The question for debate centers on whether a social custom of paying one’s way upon ending a date applies when the initiator of the date has already secured the meal entirely through business trade, effectively making the meal ‘free’ for both parties outside of the trade agreement. Should the OP pay for her half, or is the man’s demand invalid given he never received a bill?
Here’s how people reacted:
I wonder if he’s stealing these swap goods from his employer?
Up to you how you proceed, but NTA either way.
Tell him no and if he pushes, tell him to take you to court for it. I’m sure the judge will be happy to see a guy wanting money from a free meal.
If you ever see him walking towards you on the road, cross to the other side and run away