Yeah, the problem is that Jerry thinks he used both parts of the equation- The “buy one” AND the “get one”. But he didn’t- Tom did the “buy one” part (unwittingly) and Jerry did the “get one” part. That seems unfair to me. I wouldn’t make a fuss about it, but it would color my opinion of Jerry.
It’s a dick move. Jerry is getting Tom to buy his lunch for him. The "get one free’ is intended to be a reward for the one who pays. It’s analogous to asking someone else to buy a two-for-one item at a grocery store and then asking them to give you the free one. Jerry is using Tom’s money to get a free lunch (and doing so without telling him up front). Ass move already, and “we have to come back next month” just puts the cherry in the crack. Tom would be justified in asking for half the cost of his meal back (not that Jerry would be likely to pony it up), and “next month” would be out of the question unless Jerry was buying this time.
If it wasn’t a cock move - and Jerry didn’t already know it was a cock move - then Jerry would have told Tom what he was doing upfront.
He wasn’t paying for his lunch, he was getting Tom to pay for his lunch. To use another punchcard analogy, it’s like getting somebody else to buy the last sandwich on your Subway card so you can get a free sandwich.
Your jib is showing, and the cut is fabulous!
I can sort of, kind of see thinking about it as a gift certificate or something. I can see how it could be ok. This though:
is obnoxious. A demand to get a free lunch once/month for a year with no offer to share?
I think Jerry is going to be eating alone.
Just cause I’m curious… is this hypothetical or did it happen at your work? Are you Tom… or Jerry? :eek:
And if you’re Jerry, you’re a jerk. It doesn’t count as a personal insult if it’s still hypothetical!
This is the point I was about to make. .
The punchcard is owned by Tom and states that if the holder of the card buys a meal, he would get an equal or lesser value meal for free.
So technically, Tom is to pay for his own meal. And the 2nd meal, Jerry’s, would be free.
What I get out of this story is that Jerry (though not entitled to anything - and would have paid for his own meal anyway) is a chump.
We don’t know the exact nature of this punchcard. It doesn’t sound like one of the free Subway punch cards, where anyone can get one, and putting my sandwich on your card prevents me from using it on my own card.
To expand on the hypothetical, let’s say Jerry won the “year of BOGO” card in a contest. You and Jerry already go to this restaurant occasionally, would you stop going there with him or demand that he share his winnings with you 50/50 because you would be acting as the BO?
I will say, regardless, that Jerry was boorish for not mentioning to Tom that he had this buy one get one card before going for lunch.
The cool thing to do is to split the meal. But technically, the card is the equivalent of cash. It’s like Jerry brought a coupon for a free lunch.
Since this clearly wasn’t a punch card that was literally punched (like at Subway), I imagined it was like the cards Paradise Bakery hands out (for example). That is, you earn rewards as you buy meals throughout the month, and then you get little perks like a BOGO. In that case, Jerry would have already “earned” his BOGO by virtue of eating there throughout the month. That second meal was already his, he was just able to take advantage of it because Tom bought his own lunch. Which to me is substantially different from the Subway system, where you would need somebody to purchase that 10th meal if you wanted to be a cheapskate and get the 11th for free.
That sort of card also makes sense with the revelation of the fact that he wants to go there to collect his free meal once a month. Either he won some sort of contest at Cheesesteak pointed out, or he’s doing something the rest of the month to earn a free meal.
Now I agree that if he made Tom buy his tenth meal or whatever, that’s a different thing entirely. So much so that it didn’t even occur to me somebody would do that without at least asking first. If I had a friend who said “Hey, I’m a bit short this week, but I have an almost full punchcard for a free meal, do you mind using the card when you purchase your meal?” I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
If it was two for one, he needed Tom to buy the one. He used Tom’s money to get a free meal.
I would be annoyed. Social convention is that you spilt deals like that.
If they split it, then Tom used Jerry’s card to get a half price meal. Why is that better?
Compensation for Tom’s part in helping Jerry get his meal? I dunno.
No, the situation described is purely a hypothetical.
I actually did purchase a card like this through a fundraiser from a kid in my neighborhood. It is as described, you can use it once a month for a year, to do a buy one get one free of any entree item on the restaurant’s menu. I have gone with a co-worker to lunch there and used the card, and we just split the tab 50/50 (I shared my discount with her). She was very thankful and said that she would have been happy to pay the full amount for her lunch and allow me to get my lunch for free, but I refused. It was this incident that got me thinking about how would someone react if Jerry had screwed Tom over like the OP states.
I just don’t see why Tom is entitled to compensation. He paid exactly as much as he would have paid with or without the card. Jerry included a portion of the tip. He wasn’t inconvenienced in any way. There’s no indication he ate at the restaurant against his will. There’s no indication he doesn’t enjoy Jerry’s company. If Jerry had a coupon, would he be obligated to pay for Tom’s meal instead of his own? If he had a gift card to the restaurant, would he be obligated to offer to put a portion of Tom’s meal on it? This just seems like an opportunity to be put out purely for the pleasure of it, rather than because Tom was actually put out by anything that happened.
Its the same restaurant they eat at anyhow, and he paid a tip.
Its kind of funny really, Id be irked, but really Im no worse off than if he’d just paid normally. There is the ‘come to lunch with me when my next free lunch is due’ but a regular monthly lunch isnt unusual either.
I guess my initial thought is Id be surprised but would try not to worry about it, unless the company was bad in some other way.
Edit: But if I did the reverse, I wouldnt be surprised if it bugged people, so would avoid doing it.
Otara
Which is why mostly everyone is saying, if they were Tom they wouldn’t make a big deal of it. No he’s not obligated, but it’s a social nicety.
But no one likes feeling used for someone’s gain. As in, they didn’t really want my company, they just used me for a free meal. Or, because I bought a meal you got a free one and couldn’t even offer to split mine so we both benefit from you asking me to lunch. Most likely Tom would decline the half-meal payment, but it’s nice to be offered.
Why is Jerry entitled to a free meal from Tom?