**POTENTIAL SPOILERS**. Though I am not sure if Paul is well-off or not, not knowing how much a computer programmer would have earned circa 1985 - his apartment does look a little sparse - he is still able to take $20.00 with him on his trip down to SoHo, $20.00 being, I should imagine, quite a sum in 1985. So when his money disappears out the window of the cab - the ride downtown costing something like $6.00 - then why didn't Paul, (as a supposedly honest man), ask the driver to take him back to his apartment so that he could have gotten some more money and been able to pay him in full rather than making - what must have seemed to the taxi-driver like a lame excuse? Or are we to insinuate that Paul was down to his last $20.00? Or didn't want to risk going back and risk missing the appointed time for his rendezvous with the wonderful Arquette character? If he had gone back home he might just have saved himself a lot of bother - but then again, probably not. Still, when we accept that this man is desperate to get back home, why couldn't he have just hopped in a cab and paid when he did eventually get home? He was able to get a cab to SoHo without paying, so why couldn't he have just reversed the process? It is not at though he is totally honest, after all. He had previously tried to ride the tube home free when he found that he hadn't enough money to pay the (just-raised) fare and I know he did try to hail a cab home ONCE, offering to pay with the $20.00 bill he had removed (stolen) from the paper maché model, but he never thinks of hailing another cab after this money is stolen, in turn, from him by a less than happy taxi-driver! Then again, if he had thought of this we would have been denied our enjoyable night out with him, so a little potential plot hole is excusable in the circumstances!