Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-09-2018, 06:09 PM
not what you'd expect not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,486
:shakes fist at running coach:
  #52  
Old 09-09-2018, 06:09 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmoak View Post

He's also apparently a hero to the intel/red-pill/MRA crowd, if you read the comments on almost any news article about him.
Incel or Intel? Because when I worked at Intel I knew no one this obnoxious.
Not even my boss.
  #53  
Old 09-09-2018, 07:15 PM
Melbourne Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
. He obtained a free meal at expensive restaurants through false pretenses. That's extortion. .
I agree with all the other people who are "missing the point". False pretenses is not extortion.
  #54  
Old 09-09-2018, 08:45 PM
nelliebly nelliebly is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
I agree with all the other people who are "missing the point". False pretenses is not extortion.
IANAL, but that's how the DA in California sees it. I've messaged an attorney friend to ask for clarification because I can see how it might amount to embezzlement instead. This guy found a way of scamming people. Maybe he thought he could get away with it for the same reason some folks here think he's done nothing illegal. It'll be interesting to see how a judge views it, especially as the guy has pled not guilty to all counts.
  #55  
Old 09-09-2018, 10:21 PM
nelliebly nelliebly is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 788
I heard back from my attorney friend re: extortion. I asked her how this guy's actions could constitute extortion and whether they might be embezzlement instead. Here's her answer:

Quote:
Itís not embezzlement because he didnít have possession of the womanís money. An example of embezzlement might be someone who's the bookkeeper for a business so he originally lawfully comes into possession of the businessí money, but if he actually takes it, that becomes a crime. Thereís usually a fiduciary relationship. I think it becomes extortion because the date is left holding the bag and extortion can involve the threat of public humiliation. If she didnít pay, she would be embarrassed and possibly arrested.
I realize this is just one attorney's opinion, and I'm asking you to take my word for it she's an attorney; however, I'm using it only to clarify the DA's decision to prosecute it as extortion. Again, we'll see what the judge decides.
  #56  
Old 09-10-2018, 02:16 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone!
Posts: 27,203
Dining and dashing is a criminal offence in Canada, under the federal Criminal Code

Quote:
Originally Posted by Criminal Code
Fraudulently obtaining food, beverage or accommodation
364 (1) Every one who fraudulently obtains food, a beverage or accommodation at any place that is in the business of providing those things is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) In proceedings under this section, evidence that the accused obtained food, a beverage or accommodation at a place that is in the business of providing those things and did not pay for it and
...
(d) absconded or surreptitiously left the premises,
...
is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof of fraud.

Last edited by Northern Piper; 09-10-2018 at 02:16 AM.
  #57  
Old 09-10-2018, 07:36 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 13,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Dining and dashing is a criminal offence in Canada, under the federal Criminal Code
That is similar to the law is most U.S. states in that there must be an intent to defraud, typically making up one's mind prior to eating that he or she is not going to pay for the meal. If the meal is cold, has hair in it, etc. and you have a genuine dispute with the owner over the bill and refuse to pay part or all of it, then that is a civil matter and not a crime.

Much like shoplifting in that if you accidentally walk out of the store with an item, it is not a crime. Such intent is sometimes difficult to prove, and that is a good provision in the Canadian law that allows an assumption that if you just sneak out at the end of the meal, then that was your intention all along: not a dispute with the owner.

This case is more complicated as, although the guy intended to defraud (theft by deception) it is unclear who. As others have mentioned, in this day and time, the woman cannot simply assume that the man has agreed to pay. I think that under social customs, she could reasonably assume that either: 1) he would pay, or 2) they would split the bill. However, social custom would also imply that he sticks around and they sort out the bill before they leave which makes this case interesting. Without a prior discussion, and if it turns out to be #2, I think that the law would say that she is responsible for her portion.

So, it is possible that if she refuses to pay, she is contractually obligated to the restaurant for her share of the bill, but if she refuses that, then she is still not guilty of a crime. However, there is the possibility that the police aren't as versed in the law as they should be and she spends the night in jail. In that sense, IMHO the elements of extortion are met, but I think that the prosecutor is really grasping there.
  #58  
Old 09-12-2018, 12:33 PM
DesertDog DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 4,271
I was at a restaurant with my girl once and behind me was another young couple. It soon became apparent they were having some kind of argument -- I couldn't hear the words but the tones sure carried through. A few minutes after that our waitress did a double take an said something, "Wait! Where did...?" I turned around and there were two half-eaten dinners and nobody around. I told her what I'd sensed and also that I'd been trying not to pay attention. When we left a half-hour later, nobody had made it back to that table.
__________________
A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. ITMFA
  #59  
Old 09-12-2018, 12:46 PM
kanicbird kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,904
It appears like it, at the very least they went in jointly to pay with a agreement between the 2. Because this was premeditated it seems beyond the jointly, one person has a emergency and has to leave type thing and into some sort of theft.
  #60  
Old 09-13-2018, 04:37 AM
Melbourne Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
It appears like it, at the very least they went in jointly to pay with a agreement between the 2. Because this was premeditated it seems beyond the jointly, one person has a emergency and has to leave type thing and into some sort of theft.
Sure. Theft. Larceny. "or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property"

I'm not familiar with law, or with that law, so I assume that the penalty they can reasonably expect for the series of thefts is less than what they are hoping to get for extortion.
  #61  
Old 09-13-2018, 06:08 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 13,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
It appears like it, at the very least they went in jointly to pay with a agreement between the 2. Because this was premeditated it seems beyond the jointly, one person has a emergency and has to leave type thing and into some sort of theft.
But who did he steal from? Her or the restaurant?
  #62  
Old 09-13-2018, 08:13 AM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 11,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But who did he steal from? Her or the restaurant?
That's the question nobody seems able to answer - that is, does the last person remaining at the table have a legal obligation to pay for the meals of everyone who ate at that table? If so, then he stole from her. If not, then he stole from the restaurant.
  #63  
Old 09-13-2018, 09:03 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
That's the question nobody seems able to answer - that is, does the last person remaining at the table have a legal obligation to pay for the meals of everyone who ate at that table?
It's very unlikely you're going to get a definitive answer to this question, because I doubt that this sort of thing makes it to court very often.

The best you're going to get is what I said—You can't say that she agreed to a contract that she didn't know about, so it's unlikely that she has a legal obligation to pay for his meal in this circumstances.

Quote:
If so, then he stole from her. If not, then he stole from the restaurant.
It's simpler than that.

If she paid the bill, then he committed fraud on her.

If no one paid the bill, then he stole from the restaurant.

Last edited by Acsenray; 09-13-2018 at 09:05 AM.
  #64  
Old 09-13-2018, 09:39 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,109
Unless separate checks are asked for before the meal, then the check is to be paid by the party in general, and if she is what is left of the party at the end of the meal then she is obligated to pay. While it may be good PR to show some mercy when it comes to her predicament, they are not part of whatever negotiations the party may or may not have made prior to the meal. Also, the restaurant has to consider the possibility that the whole thing may be a scam perpetrated by both the man and the woman to cut the bill in half.
edited to add: There is also the possibility that the wait-person will be held liable if someone skips.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 09-13-2018 at 09:42 AM.
  #65  
Old 09-13-2018, 10:05 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 25,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Unless separate checks are asked for before the meal, then the check is to be paid by the party in general,
Agreed.
Quote:
and if she is what is left of the party at the end of the meal then she is obligated to pay.
This gets into the part that's non-obvious/disputed. You seem to be saying that, when the first person leaves, the general obligation to pay "collapses" to the remaining person; and if she then also leaves without paying, that obligation to pay (and thus the culpability for not paying) remains solely on her, instead of reverting back to the "party in general."
  #66  
Old 09-13-2018, 10:06 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Unless separate checks are asked for before the meal, then the check is to be paid by the party in general, and if she is what is left of the party at the end of the meal then she is obligated to pay.
Unless there's some authority that says this, I can't take it at face value. It's a contract like any other, which requires knowledgeable assent. It's a very good argument that a party that joined a table late cannot have assented to be obligated by a transaction, or a portion of a transaction, that she didn't know about.
  #67  
Old 09-13-2018, 10:26 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Unless there's some authority that says this, I can't take it at face value. It's a contract like any other, which requires knowledgeable assent. It's a very good argument that a party that joined a table late cannot have assented to be obligated by a transaction, or a portion of a transaction, that she didn't know about.
Would the situation be the same in the OP if the female skipped out and the male claimed that she was supposed to pay the bill? Would there be an equal chance that the restaurant would take pity on him and let him leave without paying(or even cut his bill in half)? Once again, the restaurant is not party to whatever negotiations the two people made beforehand, and it would be sexist to assume that the male is the one who will pay the bill.
  #68  
Old 09-13-2018, 10:47 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 25,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Would the situation be the same in the OP if the female skipped out and the male claimed that she was supposed to pay the bill?
Legally, or practically?
  #69  
Old 09-13-2018, 10:49 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Legally, or practically?
Both.
  #70  
Old 09-13-2018, 10:57 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Would the situation be the same in the OP if the female skipped out and the male claimed that she was supposed to pay the bill? Would there be an equal chance that the restaurant would take pity on him and let him leave without paying(or even cut his bill in half)? Once again, the restaurant is not party to whatever negotiations the two people made beforehand, and it would be sexist to assume that the male is the one who will pay the bill.
I made no comment on the gender of the participants. As for whether the restaurant is more likely to believe a man or a woman in that situation, it doesnít affect the contract analysis.

And we are talking about contractual relationships between the restaurant and the two individuals. There is no ďtableĒ that is a legal person in this scenario. There are just the individuals.
  #71  
Old 09-13-2018, 11:02 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,807
And the question isn’t about who was “supposed to pay the bill.”

It’s about whether person A can obligate person B in a contract or a portion of a contract without person B’s knowledge.
  #72  
Old 09-13-2018, 11:03 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
I made no comment on the gender of the participants. As for whether the restaurant is more likely to believe a man or a woman in that situation, it doesnít affect the contract analysis.

And we are talking about contractual relationships between the restaurant and the two individuals. There is no ďtableĒ that is a legal person in this scenario. There are just the individuals.
Unless it is agreed beforehand that the checks will be split, it is the party that is being served and the party that is being billed. I have yet to see a single bill presented at the end of a meal that has two(or more) separate totals listed.
  #73  
Old 09-13-2018, 11:09 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
And the question isn’t about who was “supposed to pay the bill.”

It’s about whether person A can obligate person B in a contract or a portion of a contract without person B’s knowledge.
And what I am saying is that, if there is a con going on, the person who loses out is the person left at the table, not the person who owns the table. The person at the table has at least a chance to do a cursory background check by checking online and/or asking friends, and thus is at least partially responsible for what happens afterwards. The contract is between the restaurant and the party who sits at the table-the separate contract of who will pay for what is a separate contract between the people at the table.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 09-13-2018 at 11:11 AM.
  #74  
Old 09-13-2018, 01:07 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,807
As a matter of contract law, Person B has a very good argument that whatever ordering and eating that took place without her knowledge constitutes a completely different transaction because it happened without her knowledge.

There’s no legal rule that I know of that says that the fact that a restaurant presents a single bill means that there can’t be two contracts.

Your assertions are bare assertions that you haven’t backed up with any principle of law. You’re simply asserting your own preference. So I have nothing more to say in response.

Last edited by Acsenray; 09-13-2018 at 01:11 PM.
  #75  
Old 09-13-2018, 01:31 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,109
Joint and Several Liability: Under joint and several liability or all sums, a claimant may pursue an obligation against any one party as if they were jointly liable and it becomes the responsibility of the defendants to sort out their respective proportions of liability and payment. This means that if the claimant pursues one defendant and receives payment, that defendant must then pursue the other obligors for a contribution to their share of the liability.
  #76  
Old 09-13-2018, 01:42 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Joint and Several Liability: Under joint and several liability or all sums, a claimant may pursue an obligation against any one party as if they were jointly liable and it becomes the responsibility of the defendants to sort out their respective proportions of liability and payment. This means that if the claimant pursues one defendant and receives payment, that defendant must then pursue the other obligors for a contribution to their share of the liability.
This is just a theory of liability when there are multiple potential defendants. You can certainly seek damages under this theory, but that doesnít support your assertions that that is whatís happening in this case. The restaurant still has to prove in the first place that Person B is responsible for the loss.
  #77  
Old 09-13-2018, 01:46 PM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer Projammer is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,344
Let's put another spin on the hypotheticals. She realizes that he's left, but rather than make a fuss, she just tells the waiter to bring separate checks. She pays hers and leaves after explaining the situation to management. Presumably she paid with a debit or credit card so there is a record that can be traced back to her if the restaurant decides to pursue this issue. Would the restaurant have any legal recourse against her?
__________________
Lurking in the corridors of my mind.
  #78  
Old 09-13-2018, 01:48 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
This is just a theory of liability when there are multiple potential defendants. You can certainly seek damages under this theory, but that doesnít support your assertions that that is whatís happening in this case. The restaurant still has to prove in the first place that Person B is responsible for the loss.
The restaurant just has to prove that Person B was part of the party.
  #79  
Old 09-13-2018, 01:51 PM
x-ray vision's Avatar
x-ray vision x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 5,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The person at the table has at least a chance to do a cursory background check by checking online and/or asking friends, and thus is at least partially responsible for what happens afterwards.
Yeah, what law is that written in to? "You could have found out he was a dick, so pay for the food the guy ate before you got there." No, I don't think so.

Quote:
The contract is between the restaurant and the party who sits at the table-the separate contract of who will pay for what is a separate contract between the people at the table.
Do you have a cite for that? How does sitting at the table afterwards make that person liable? How about the contract is between the one ordering and eating the food and the restaurant?
  #80  
Old 09-13-2018, 02:05 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray vision View Post
Yeah, what law is that written in to? "You could have found out he was a dick, so pay for the food the guy ate before you got there." No, I don't think so.


Do you have a cite for that? How does sitting at the table afterwards make that person liable? How about the contract is between the one ordering and eating the food and the restaurant?
I provided a cite for what we're actually talking about, not your "he was already eating when person B decided to sit and chat for awhile" scenario.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 09-13-2018 at 02:07 PM.
  #81  
Old 09-13-2018, 02:18 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray vision View Post
How does sitting at the table afterwards make that person liable?
Did you happen to have at least read the title of this thread?
  #82  
Old 09-13-2018, 02:30 PM
x-ray vision's Avatar
x-ray vision x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 5,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I provided a cite for what we're actually talking about, not your "he was already eating when person B decided to sit and chat for awhile" scenario.
It's not my scenario. It's the scenario you are discussing with Acsenray whether you're aware of it or not. Acsenray mentioned it in posts 31, 43, 63 and the first post he made in this thread responding to one of your posts (66) (bolding mine):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Unless there's some authority that says this, I can't take it at face value. It's a contract like any other, which requires knowledgeable assent. It's a very good argument that a party that joined a table late cannot have assented to be obligated by a transaction, or a portion of a transaction, that she didn't know about.
This was repeated by Acsenray in the back and forth between the two of you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
And the question isnít about who was ďsupposed to pay the bill.Ē

Itís about whether person A can obligate person B in a contract or a portion of a contract without person Bís knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
As a matter of contract law, Person B has a very good argument that whatever ordering and eating that took place without her knowledge constitutes a completely different transaction because it happened without her knowledge.

Thereís no legal rule that I know of that says that the fact that a restaurant presents a single bill means that there canít be two contracts.

Your assertions are bare assertions that you havenít backed up with any principle of law. Youíre simply asserting your own preference. So I have nothing more to say in response.
And your cite is not regarding what we are talking about. It is regarding what happens when different types of liability have already been established.
  #83  
Old 09-13-2018, 03:09 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The restaurant just has to prove that Person B was part of the party.
This is a bare assertion. A party of people sitting at a restaurant table isnít a pre-recognized legal unit. The restaurant has to prove that all the members were parties to the same agreement in order to successfully argue joint and several liability.

Youíre just randomly drawing conclusions to support your desired outcome.
  #84  
Old 09-14-2018, 04:33 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 13,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
That's the question nobody seems able to answer - that is, does the last person remaining at the table have a legal obligation to pay for the meals of everyone who ate at that table? If so, then he stole from her. If not, then he stole from the restaurant.
Well, let's Socrates this thing. Let's say that I walk into Bob Evans and order the Rise and Shine breakfast listed on the menu at $7.99 (let's ignore tax and tip).

I believe that any judge would rule that at that point I have entered into a contract with Bob Evans that in exchange for a Rise and Shine breakfast, given to me in a reasonably acceptable condition, I agree to pay Bob Evans $7.99. If I fail to pay $7.99 due to a dispute over the quality of the meal, then we have a civil action. If I entered Bob Evans with the intent to order/eat the food but without the intent to pay, and I indeed ordered/ate the food I have committed theft. I think we all agree with this paragraph.

So what happens if you and I enter Bob Evans and each order the Rise and Shine breakfast? Have we entered into a joint contract for $15.98 or have each of us entered individual contracts for $7.99?

The second question is what if before we entered:
1) We agreed to split the bill.
2) I agreed to pay the bill.
3) You agreed to pay the bill.
4) We did not discuss who would pay the bill.

And further suppose that you entered intending to pay for (whatever 1-4) and I intended to skip out without paying.

We now have to determine our obligations to each other and to Bob Evans. I think our obligations to each other are clear in scenarios #1 through #3. I further think that in scenario #4, absent some pre-existing relationship or course of conduct or dealing between the two of us, the default assumption is that we are equally responsible to each other for the payment of our own Rise and Shine breakfasts.

However, from Bob Evans' perspective, does it matter what our agreement was? By sitting at the same table and ordering our breakfasts together have either or both of us engaged in a contractual duty above our own duty to each other?

I believe we have. From Bob Evans' perspective, I believe that it is reasonable (absent some pre-meal declaration and acquiescence that one or the other is responsible for the bill) under common custom that by us sitting at the same table and ordering food, Bob Evans has a contractual expectation that one of us will take care of the bill before we leave. Whatever arrangements we have made between us are just that: between us. Bob Evans does not care either way.

So Judge Ultravires would rule than in Scenario:

1) After I skip out, you are liable to Bob Evans for $15.98. You have a contractual right to sue me for $7.99. I have not committed theft from you, because I did not convert your money to my personal use, but subject you to contractual liability. I have committed theft from Bob Evans because I took their property (food) without an intent to pay.

2) After I skip out, you are liable to Bob Evans for $15.98. You have a contractual right to sue me for $15.98. I have not committed theft from you, because I did not convert your money to my personal use, but subject you to contractual liability. I have committed theft from Bob Evans because I took their property (food) without an intent to pay.

3) After I skip out, you are liable to Bob Evans for $15.98. You have no right to contribution from me because you agreed to pay for the meal. I have not committed theft because I did not have the requisite intent to deprive. However, if for some reason you do not pay, I am liable to Bob Evans for $15.98 because through my actions, I gave Bob Evans the impression that one of us would pay. I may then sue you for $15.98, the amount you agreed to pay.

4) Same as #1. Social customs dictate that without some pre-existing relationship, the default is that we split the bill.


It is so ordered.
  #85  
Old 09-14-2018, 09:07 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
This is a bare assertion. A party of people sitting at a restaurant table isnít a pre-recognized legal unit. The restaurant has to prove that all the members were parties to the same agreement in order to successfully argue joint and several liability.

Youíre just randomly drawing conclusions to support your desired outcome.
And you aren't? Where is your disdain for all the unsubstantiated opinions on the other side of the table? At least I offered a cite that might pertain to the situation.
  #86  
Old 09-14-2018, 09:35 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 29,566
You guys can have the table, I'm gonna go sit at the bar.
  #87  
Old 09-14-2018, 09:38 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
You guys can have the table, I'm gonna go sit at the bar.
Order whatever you want-I'll pick up your tab.
  #88  
Old 09-14-2018, 09:39 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 29,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Order whatever you want-I'll pick up your tab.
OK, but no way you're getting lucky tonight!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017