Is skipping out on a date and leaving them with the food bill a (literal) crime?

[Czarcasm]

@x-ray_vision

How does sitting at the table afterwards make that person liable?

Did you happen to have at least read the title of this thread?

[x-ray_vision]

@Czarcasm

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):

@Acsenray

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:

@Acsenray

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.

@Acsenray

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.

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.

[Acsenray]

@Czarcasm

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 isn’t 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.

You’re just randomly drawing conclusions to support your desired outcome.

[UltraVires]

@Machine_Elf

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.

[Czarcasm]

@Acsenray

This is a bare assertion. A party of people sitting at a restaurant table isn’t 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.

You’re 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.

[kayaker]

You guys can have the table, I’m gonna go sit at the bar.

[Czarcasm]

@kayaker

You guys can have the table, I’m gonna go sit at the bar.

Order whatever you want-I’ll pick up your tab.

[kayaker]

@Czarcasm

Order whatever you want-I’ll pick up your tab.

OK, but no way you’re getting lucky tonight!

[Projammer]

Serial ‘Dine-and-Dash Dater’ Sentenced to Jail

Gonzales was sentenced to 120 days in county jail, three years of probation and ordered to pay restitution. He was prohibited from using dating websites and apps including “PlentyOfFish” and “Bumble.” He is also required to stay 100 yards away from five restaurants and is subject to search and seizure conditions of electronic devices and accounts.

Nuthin much to add to that,