deleted

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2017 01:37AM by ChrisCooper.

@bgriffin wrote:

But monies were spent.

Let me ask you a different question.
Do you think the client should get paid twice for the same meal?

They got $75 from the OP's friend, which was the agreed upon cost of the meal from the menu.
They got $75 worth of work from the OP which was the agreed upon cost of the meal through the shop.[/quote]

I promised to shut up, but because you asked....

Of course monies were spent, but reimbursement is to pay someone back for monies he or she spent out of his/her own pocket. That's the meaning and the intent of the word and the action. As shoppers, we all know what getting reimbursed means. We pay for something, and the MSC pays us back.

By your reasoning, the client is always going to get paid twice. Someone is paying that $75 for each shop, regardless of who it is. And the shopper is always going to have to give that amount of work. The OP is not out any money and hasn't incurred any loss, unless she chooses to take the friends out to dinner to reciprocate. The OP got what she signed up for--work in exchange for a meal and a fee. She should get the fee, of course. If you really want to get technical, she should have--as many here suggested--re-shopped the location in order to completely fulfill all of the terms. I'm not saying she actually should have, but that probably would have been the wisest course of action.

Like I said, everybody has to judge for themselves what they feel is right. Personally, I would feel as if I were cheating if I tried to get reimbursed for money I didn't spend. I don't think this is any different from the other thread in which someone asked about returning an item she had been reimbursed for, as a reimbursement and not a fee. If it's part of the fee, then anything goes.

@BirdyC wrote:

Of course monies were spent, but reimbursement is to pay someone back for monies he or she spent out of his/her own pocket. That's the meaning and the intent of the word and the action.


By your reasoning, the client is always going to get paid twice. Someone is paying that $75 for each shop, regardless of who it is.

No, that is not the meaning. You have added "own pocket" to the definition.

The client does not always get paid twice. Here is a normal mystery shop:

The client gets paid $75 according to the menu price (1 Payment). The shopper then fills out a report, which was an already agreed upon price for the meal plus $12 (1 Payment). The client then reimburses the cash payment (-1 Payment). 1+1-1=1

@bgriffin wrote:

No, that is not the meaning. You have added "own pocket" to the definition.

The client does not always get paid twice. Here is a normal mystery shop:

I'm not going to argue about it anymore. Look up the definition. Reimbursement is for out-of-pocket expenses. It means *your* pocket, not somebody else's. I didn't make it up. Businesses don't reimburse people for money they didn't spend. At least not in my world.

Edited to add: If you think I'm just pulling the meaning of "reimbursement" out of thin air, maybe you'll believe this: [definitions.uslegal.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2017 02:19AM by BirdyC.

No need to argue. You feel like the client is owed payment twice (once from the shopper, once from the friend) and I feel like the shopper is owed twice (once from the client and once from the friend). I think this because the friend is her friend, not the client's friend. You think that for....well because money came out of the friend's pocket instead of the shopper's.

bgriffin, You think the shopper should profit? That was not according to terms.

It absolutely was according to terms. The agreement was the shopper would be reimbursed their meal plus $12. That meal cost (I'm assuming) $75. They have not been reimbursed that cost. That the $75 was given to them by an entity unrelated to that agreement is irrelevant as that party was not in any way party to the agreement, nor were they even aware of the agreement. The person who paid for the $75 meal absolutely intended for the shopper to profit in the form of a free meal. The shopper getting a free meal via the friend does not exclude the client from their end of the bargain.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2017 03:23AM by bgriffin.

@BirdyC, I have to ask you directly: If the OP's husband had paid for the meal, would you also say that the OP should not have been reimbursed because she did not pay for the meal herself?

@Mert wrote:

bgriffin, You think the shopper should profit? That was not according to terms.

In my situation with the shoe store, are you suggesting that I illegally profited from the mshopping I did because I was reimbursed more than 50% of the cost of the shoes, although my friend paid for the purchase? As far as I am concerned, the terms are reimbursement of the cost. If the MSC does not reimburse the cost of the meal, I suggest the MSC would be profiting twice, by being paid by the client for the cost of the meal and then making use of the generosity of the friend who had nothing to do with him. If I were the friend I would view myself as a charitable institution because my gift was not intended for the MSC. I fully agree with bgriffin.

I don't care who paid for the shop or if it was comped. The point is the company gets their report and hope you will take someone with you to make them money. It does not state anywhere who pays for the dinner as long as you have a receipt.

Suppose I hire a plumber to replace my water heater. I agree to pay labor and reimburse the cost of the water heater. The water heater I require is not in stock in my town. The plumber calls his friend in another town, who volunteers to buy the water heater and drop it off, along with the receipt. Upon dropping it off, the friend tells the plumber not to worry about the money, that the plumber can owe him a favor. The plumber tells me this later.

So, should I explain to the plumber I don’t have to pay for the heater? The plumber is not out any money from his own pocket, so what is there to reimburse? Do I tell him he did not pay for the heater and should stop being greedy and trying to profit from his friend’s largesse?

You might say this is different because the plumber did not get to keep the water heater. Suppose I am the plumber’s landlord, and the water heater was for his shop. He has a ten-year lease, which is the expected usefulness of the water heater. Do I now tell the plumber he has hot water and did not spend anything out of his pocket, which was what he expected coming into the job, so he should not complain?

@MSF wrote:

@BirdyC, I have to ask you directly: If the OP's husband had paid for the meal, would you also say that the OP should not have been reimbursed because she did not pay for the meal herself?

I think it depends. If the OP and her husband comingle their money, then the OP did pay for the meal and should receive reimbursement.

If the OP and her husband keep their money totally separate, then I think she should pay for the meal and receive the reimbursement. If her husband wants to treat her, I think it should be on a non-shop meal. That way she pays, she gets reimbursed. If, however, the husband insists on paying for that specific meal, I think she should give him the $$ when she receives it from the MSC. If he opts to say, "No, you take that as a gift from me," then that seems fine.

When a credit card is used for payment, the bank is fronting the money to the purchaser. Does this disqualify all credit card users from receiving reimbursement since they are not using their own money at the time of purchase?

I'm not sure why we're making such a simple concept so complex. A reimbursement is--by definition, intent, and application--payment to someone for an expense, loss, or damage he/ she incurred. Not an expense, loss, or damage incurred by a third party. This isn't my *opinion.* It's how reimbursement works in business. If someone doesn't pay for something, reimbursement is impossible and illogical.

What expense, damage, or loss did the OP incur? Can someone explain that to me, please? The OP seems to feel she's "out" something that she wouldn't have been if she and her husband had paid for the meal and been reimbursed. She agreed to do a shop for a $12 fee and reimbursement for her out-of-pocket expense of the meal--likely up to a specified limit.

If the shop comes off normally, they pay for their meal, she does the report and submits the receipt for reimbursement. She gets her $12 and whatever the amount is for reimbursement. Her net profit is $12.

Instead, the friend pays for the meal. She has incurred no expense. She does and submits the report, and is paid the $12 fee. Her net profit is $12.

The result is identical. Either way, she's received the value of the meal, without it being "out of pocket." She provides what she contracted to provide, and she receives what she contracted to receive.

We have no idea if the MSC is going to claim reimbursement from the end client. I don’t see how they can, yet many of you assume so. The end client sees the report--if the MSC can even use it--and would see that the shopper didn't incur a reimbursable expense. Why would they in turn reimburse the MSC for an expense not incurred? Do you really think the MSC is going to bill the client for a phantom expense? Can't think of a better way to lose a client.

I'm wondering if the OP spent less than the allotted amount but thought she was going to receive the full amount. Say the allotment was a max. of $100, and they spent $75. Maybe she thought she was going to get the full $100 and is thinking she's out that $25?

We can't change the meaning of "reimbursement" arbitrarily. If a shopper pays nothing, there's no reimbursement possible. If the MSC gives the shopper that $75, it becomes payment on top of the $12 fee, or a gift. But it's not a reimbursement.

And, as some people pointed out, shoppers shouldn’t do anything that might make them memorable or mark them as a shopper. I'm thinking that a person asking for a receipt for meal she didn't pay for would be odd and memorable.

I'm not "blaming" the OP for proceeding with the report. I'm not sure what I'd have done. Re-scheduling, as many suggested, would have been the best thing to do. But under stress, we don't always think things through fully. But to expect to pocket $75 as a "reimbursement" isn't right, imo.

If someone can 'splain to me how the OP has been put in a lesser position than she would have been had she paid for the meal and been reimbursed, therefore deserving an additional fee on top of the agreed-upon one, I'm all ears! (If she chooses to reciprocate the friend's generosity in the future, I think that's irrelevant.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2017 01:52PM by BirdyC.

According to your logic if the OP stated they wanted to return the money to the friend who paid for the meal then they should be owed the reimbutsement?

@bgriffin wrote:

According to your logic if the OP stated they wanted to return the money to the friend who paid for the meal then they should be owed the reimbutsement?

Whut? No, of course not.

@BirdyC wrote:

If someone can 'splain to me how the OP has been put in a lesser position than she would have been had she paid for the meal and been reimbursed, therefore deserving an additional fee on top of the agreed-upon one, I'm all ears! (If she chooses to reciprocate the friend's generosity in the future, I think that's irrelevant.)

The friend intended for the OP to have a free meal valued at $75.

The OP had a seperate agreement for a meal valued at $75 and $12 in exchange for a report.

With the 2 agrrements the OP should have received $162 in total value but has instead only received $87 in total value.


At the same time the client has now been paid $75 for a meal they were giving the OP as payment. The client has bow gained $75 in cash.

@BirdyC wrote:

@bgriffin wrote:

According to your logic if the OP stated they wanted to return the money to the friend who paid for the meal then they should be owed the reimbutsement?

Whut? No, of course not.

You stated that if a shopper and her husband did not comingle funds (making them seperate financial entities) she should repay the reimbursement to her husband. Since they are, in your example, two seperate entities it makes the situation no different than the OPs situation.

@BirdyC: Let's say the OP forgot her purse at home, her husband paid, and they keep their money separate. Because the OP's husband paid, would the OP not be entitled to reimbursement from the MSC?

@MSF wrote:

@BirdyC: Let's say the OP forgot her purse at home, her husband paid, and they keep their money separate. Because the OP's husband paid, would the OP not be entitled to reimbursement from the MSC?

The OP and her husband had dinner together, so a receipt was obtained in the normal, proper manner. The OP is entitled to reimbursement as part of the shop, but is then, I think, obligated to repay her husband. Unless he gifts it to her once she receives it.

So if it usis gifted before or during the shop reimbursement is not allowed but if it's done after it is?

This arguement has gotten completely asinine.

@bgriffin wrote:

The friend intended for the OP to have a free meal valued at $75.

Which she received.

@bgriffin wrote:

The OP had a seperate agreement for a meal valued at $75 and $12 in exchange for a report.

Which she received.

@bgriffin wrote:

With the 2 agrrements the OP should have received $162 in total value but has instead only received $87 in total value.

I don't understand this reasoning. It's not the MSC's concern what the friend wanted the shopper to have. The situation between shopper and friend is irrelevant to the shop, other than how it might affect the portion of the shop that deals with timing, accuracy of receipt, etc. Your math doesn't make sense to me. (I understand the actual math, but your reasoning still doesn't make sense.) Why should the MSC care or do anything about what the friend intended, or incorporate what you call the "agreement" between shopper and friend into its own agreement with the shopper?

@bgriffin wrote:

At the same time the client has now been paid $75 for a meal they were giving the OP as payment. The client has bow gained $75 in cash.

Again, it's irrelevant to the agreement the shopper had with the MSC. How the client benefits or not isn't the shopper's concern. Unless, of course, the report was sent to and accepted by the end client and the shopper doesn't get her $12. That's a whole different issue.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2017 02:38PM by BirdyC.

@BirdyC, not to belabor this, but...I thought the issue you were taking with the situation was that the OP didn't pay for the meal and therefore should not be reimbursed for something for which she didn't pay. If her husband paid, regardless of her party receiving the receipt normally, she still would not have paid herself. Perhaps he would not have wanted her to repay him and not accepted if she tried. So would that mean that the OP would not be entitled to the reimbursement from the MSC?

@BirdyC wrote:

@MSF wrote:

@BirdyC: Let's say the OP forgot her purse at home, her husband paid, and they keep their money separate. Because the OP's husband paid, would the OP not be entitled to reimbursement from the MSC?

The OP and her husband had dinner together, so a receipt was obtained in the normal, proper manner. The OP is entitled to reimbursement as part of the shop, but is then, I think, obligated to repay her husband. Unless he gifts it to her once she receives it.

The same meal should not satisfy both agreements as they are seperate.

Say you have two brothers who seperately give you a free meal for your birthday. You go out to dinner with one and he buys your dinner. Then the other calls you up and says you expected a birthday meal and you just got it. Sure it's your brother but that would be a jerk.move as you expected 2 meals. You are down a free meal.

Same thing here. Two seperate people gave a free meal, the OP is still out the calue of a free meal.

My issue wasn't that the OP herself specifically didn't pay--it's that neither party to the transaction paid. The situation with a husband and wife dining together on a shop, sitting at the same table--the one being serviced for the shop--is clearly different from the one the OP cited. The bill is received and paid for by the parties performing the shop.

But, if the parties keep their money separate, I do think the OP should reimburse her husband when she gets the reimbursement from the MSC. There were actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred by one of the parties to the shop. Reimbursement is due. In the OP's situation, neither party to the shop incurred any expense. And that's the real point:

There were no reimbursable expenses incurred by the OP or her husband; therefore, how can reimbursement be due? It seems so simple....

Let me ask you: Where in the business world does a person get reimbursed for money they didn't spend or won't be spending (i.e., if they get an advance in anticipation of reimbursable expenses being incurred)? If there was no outlay of money, there can't be a reimbursement.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2017 03:05PM by BirdyC.

In essence the OP was offered $12 and the value of the meal as compensation for the report. The client is now saying since the OPs friend also gave them the value of the meal they are using the friend's gift to the OP as their payment.

Well, where in business does someone put in three hours worth of work for a company and accept payment for only half an hour of that work from the company?

@BirdyC wrote:

Let me ask you: Where in the business world does a person get reimbursed for money they didn't spend or won't be spending (i.e., if they get an advance in anticipation of reimbursable expenses being incurred)? If there was no outlay of money, there can't be a reimbursement.

@bgriffin wrote:

In essence the OP was offered $12 and the value of the meal as compensation for the report. The client is now saying since the OPs friend also gave them the value of the meal they are using the friend's gift to the OP as their payment.

No. The OP was offered $12 as payment (compensation), and the value of the meal was offered in the form of reimbursement. Payment/fee and reimbursement aren't the same things. Having been in business for yourself in other areas, you know this! If you, e.g., farm out work to someone, you pay a fee (either set or hourly), and you reimburse him/her expenses necessary to the job. You wouldn't reimburse a cost that the contractor hadn't incurred. How could you? How could you reimburse money that wasn't paid out?

@BirdyC wrote:

Let me ask you: Where in the business world does a person get reimbursed for money they didn't spend or won't be spending (i.e., if they get an advance in anticipation of reimbursable expenses being incurred)? If there was no outlay of money, there can't be a reimbursement.

The OP spent the value of their friend's gift and shiuld be reimbursed. In the business to business world (as opposed to business to employee) value is used for reimbursement in many places instead of actual money spent.

My dad was a contractor. Customers were always billed for reimbursement of supplies. Sometimes those were accompanied with receipts because he purchased the item specifically for the customer, sometimes they were items he had already and the customer was billed replacement cost, because that was the value of the item.

I could think of a dozen other examples.

@MSF wrote:

Well, where in business does someone put in three hours worth of work for a company and accept payment for only half an hour of that work from the company?

Wait. The OP agreed to a fee of $12, and no more than that. She was never going to make more than $12, regardless of how long the job took. If it wasn't enough money for her to put in the time, then she shouldn't have taken the job.

Could it just be that, being a relative newbie--as she says--she way underestimated the amount of time the report would take and is simply angry that she spent so much time and will have just $12 to show for it?

We've all taken jobs that took far longer than we'd thought they would. Do we go back to the MSC and say, "Gee, I took this job for a $15 fee, but it took me twice as long to do as I thought it would, so I think you owe me $30"?