The other night, while listening to my Police Scanner, I heard a dispatcher send an officer to our local Taco Bell. Apparently some kids ordered a large order of food, and then just left without getting the food, or paying for the food.
This got me to thinking, did they commit a crime? Is it a crime (legally, not morally) to order food, then drive off?
If they really intended to get the food, but there credit card was declined (for example). this would not be considered a crime (would it?), but the end result is the same… no money exchanged hands, nor did any food…
IANAL but I think their intent would be the key. I doubt that placing the order actually creates a legal contract to buy the food, but if it were evident they were making the order just to cost the restaurant time and money it would be some kind of criminal mischief. If they forgot to bring money, just drove off, got a phone call and had to go, etc. I doubt they could be charged with any crime. If this was the fifth time they did this in the same night, they probably could be.
They’ve still ordered the food, and had it prepared. Taco Bell prepares nearly all of their menu items on an as-ordered basis; the food which the kids ordered, and didn’t take, would almost undoubtedly get thrown in the trash. So, there’s still a level of “theft” in there, as they’ve caused the restaurant to waste that food.
On edit, I agree with Crazyhorse – criminal mischief sounds about right.
Since they didn’t consume the food it would generally be considered a civil matter, not a crime. If the behavior was repeated, there might be a minor criminal charge to apply.
It’s theft of services. They never intended on purchasing the food and now it is wasted and the restaurant is left holding the bag. (ha) The credit card decline scenario is probably rare enough they eat that cost (ha ha), but outright intent is a whole other thing - especially if it was a large amount. I would think that any fast-food place worth it’s salt (what am I doing?) would have a maximum order amount, like more than $30, by which they would require payment before starting the order.
At least they didn’t assault the drive-through operator by “coning” him or something. That’s a whole other level of assholery.
I don’t see a problem with this as long as the guy still pays. It’s just adding a little bit of weirdness to the person’s day. It doesn’t hurt anyone except maybe the cold, sticky hand of the person doing it.
And it’s far better than planking, which was often dangerous.
I drive off all the time when the service is poor or the wait is too long after ordering. I don’t see it as a crime but as my way of telling them that they need to get their act together or lose business. My take on this is that there is a implied contract with fast food drive thrus; that they will provide service in a timely manner and that if they don’t then drive offs are part of the business model. Eat the loss! ha ha ha
Not the same as what the kids did, but how could they prove that they weren’t doing something similar.
Hmm, what services have they stolen? They admittedly left with nothing. That Taco Bell elected to begin preparing the food without paying for it is their own decision. I believe the important aspect is that no food was served to the offending party
I don’t see how it’s different from “dine and dash” just because they didn’t consume the food - they still had the restaurant render the time and expense to prepare food that they never intended to pay for. Whether it’s in their stomachs or the trash can, the restaurant still performed the same service for which it didn’t get paid. Proving intent is key, and whether it was $10 or $100 worth of food probably made a difference whether the restaurant would bother to call police.
Of course, I have no law training. I do watch the ticker for my local area crimes (Chicago CLEARmap) and have seen this description come up in dine and dash cases, so that’s what I’m referencing.
So if I am in a restaurant and order food but leave before it hits the table it is not a crime but if the put the food on the table and I immediately get up and leave without eating it then I have committed the crime? I guess possessing the food makes the difference.
That is basically it. IANA lawyer, but I think the problem is the lack of a contract. Restaurant do choose to speculate by preparing food before it is paid for, something very rare in the world now. This situation is a risk they take.
I think it would be. Taco Bell advertises (on TV and with the menu board at the drive thru) which is generally considered an invitation to treat. So the customer says, “I’ll have 43 mega deluxe rancho chalupas.” The clerk says, “That will be $87.50. Please pull forward.”
That looks like offer, acceptance, and a binding oral contract.
I disagree. The restaurant has every option to wait for payment and then begin preparing the food. It is their choice as a risk of doing business to begin the food preparation right when the order comes in.
Where is the acceptance there? The customer didn’t say, “Great, I’ll pay you $87.50”. Imagine going to the grocery store and when you get to the checkout you find you don’t have any money. Are you stealing the service of the checker who may already have scanned some items, and the kid who has to go restock the shelves?
Nonsense. It was a contract from the moment the order was placed and accepted.
Not sure what state the OP is in, but it seems that it may indeed be a case of theft of services in Texas:
This statute does not seem to require that the teenagers consume the food; rather it seems that the fact that Taco Bell began preparing the food to be offered would satisfy the “secure the performance of a service” bit. Other states’ statutes may differ.
