Classification of Payment Repayment Timing as Normal Conduct
Both parties in a small personal debt have said there is no rush so many times that the statement has become load-bearing infrastructure.
What Would Have Happened If the Payment Had Been Made Immediately:
The debt would not exist. The lunch would have been an ordinary lunch. Both parties would have ordered without incident. Payment would have been settled within ninety seconds of the bill arriving. No further reference to the amount would have been required. The friendship would continue with no administrative layer attached to it.
What Actually Happened:
One person paid the full amount. The other said "I'll get you back." The first person said "No rush." The second person heard "no rush" as a courtesy, not a directive.
The second person has thought about the Rs. 120 on seven subsequent occasions: twice while making coffee, once while watching a film, twice while in the same person's company without a direct opportunity to resolve it, and twice while failing to locate exact change.
Each occasion was followed by the conclusion that this was not the right moment.
What the Counterfactual Reveals:
The cost of not paying immediately was not Rs. 120 preserved. The cost was Rs. 120 converted into a recurring mental item with no expiry date and a social dimension that prevents its direct resolution.
Governing Rule: Under the applicable standard, any payment repayment timing involving two people must preserve the appearance that neither person is keeping score. Keeping score while performing the appearance of not keeping score is the governing activity.
The debt will be repaid at a natural moment that has not yet presented itself. Both parties agree there is no rush.