Legality of Walking Out of a Restaurant Without Paying

[MandaJo]

@RealityChuck

If you leave without paying, you’re committing the crime.

The fact that someone is not there to take your order doesn’t matter. If you can’t find a clerk in a store, does that mean any merchandise you were planning to pay for is now yours? Of course not.

You could always leave money at the register to cover your meal, along with the check.

Except lots of people don’t carry cash, and when you’ve already eaten the food you don’t have the option to leave it there–you are being held hostage.

[Wallenstein]

@RealityChuck

If you leave without paying, you’re committing the crime.

The fact that someone is not there to take your order doesn’t matter. If you can’t find a clerk in a store, does that mean any merchandise you were planning to pay for is now yours? Of course not.

You could always leave money at the register to cover your meal, along with the check.

That’s slightly different, in that you’ve already received the service at a restuarant.

If you hire someone to mow your lawn, and they leave before you can pay them, you’ve not “stolen” from them… likewise, if you’ve made a reasonable attempt to pay and no-one is available how is it unreasonable not to leave a note and clear off?

I don’t see how you can be expected to leave payment without receiving a receipt - what’s to stop the restaurant chasing you anyway, and claiming you never paid (even if you know you left the cash in the register or wherever)?

[Carlyjay]

As far as “there was no one there to take my money and I was paying by credit card and I waited forever”:

Sometimes the server may get caught up bringing in stock, or running cutlery through, or something. A restaurant can’t be open if no one is on the premesis. Even if you’ve waited a long time with your credit card on the table, you still have to pay. Not paying is stealing. Feel free to be angry about it, but you still have to pay the cheque. At worst, if you don’t want to wait any longer, go to the kitchen and tell the cooks you want to pay or you’ll have to leave. Someone has to make the food. They’ll be there.

As RealityChuck said, if you were in a store and the sales clerk wasn’t around, you wouldn’t be allowed to just take what you want for free.

[saoirse]

@Oakminster

If you leave without paying, you are guilty of theft. In my state, if the bill was over $100, you are guilty of a felony. If you can’t find anyone to take the money, leave it on the table.

But suppose someone walks out before their food arrives and expresses their displeasure with the service through something called “negative tipping,” apparently taking money from an adjacent table?

[Canadjun]

@RealityChuck

I do this all the time, and it’s expected at classier restaurants (assuming your paying cash): just leave the money on the table (including the tip) for the waitress to pick up.

So do I. If I’m paying cash and I don’t need change then I just leave the money. If the waiter/ess has provided a folder with the bill inside, then I put the money inside the folder and close it so the money isn’t obvious. If there isn’t a folder I usually stick it partly under a plate or cup (my intent is so that it can’t flutter away in a breeze, but on thinking about it that would also require someone to take slightly more action in order to walk away with it).

I have been sorely tempted to leave without paying when service has been slow to the point of glacial, but I doubt there’s anywhere where that wouldn’t be technically illegal. Two solutions that I’ve never tried come to mind - LOUDLY announce that you would like your bill NOW and repeat as needed until you get a reaction, or leave a note “I’m sorry - I wanted to pay my bill but there was no one around to take my credit card number. Please phone me at 666-6666 tomorrow and I will give you my credit card number.”

I am most emphatically not a lawyer, but both those would seem to fit making a reasonable effort to pay.

[Kozmik]

@Carlyjay

Not paying is stealing.

I didn’t pay for the packets of jam that I put in my takeout box. I paid in full for everything on my bill that I ordered and I even gave a tip. Did I steal?

[RealityChuck]

@Manda JO

Except lots of people don’t carry cash, and when you’ve already eaten the food you don’t have the option to leave it there–you are being held hostage.

Oh, I’m sure the judge will buy that reasoning. :rolleyes: All you have to do is track down someone and have them take your card. If there’s anyone in the restaurant at all, it shouldn’t be that hard.

@e-logic

That’s slightly different, in that you’ve already received the service at a restuarant.

If you hire someone to mow your lawn, and they leave before you can pay them, you’ve not “stolen” from them… likewise, if you’ve made a reasonable attempt to pay and no-one is available how is it unreasonable not to leave a note and clear off?

I don’t see how you can be expected to leave payment without receiving a receipt - what’s to stop the restaurant chasing you anyway, and claiming you never paid (even if you know you left the cash in the register or wherever)?

I can’t even begin to figure out what logical system you are using to bring up these examples. It’s certainly not anything human.

Point by point:

1. So it’s worse in a restaurant – you’ve received service (and food) but aren’t paying for it.
2. The lawn example is probably the more irrelvant analogy I’ve ever seen on this board. The lawn person may have chosen not to take the money, but you still owe it to him under – at the very least – an implied contract. He can come back later and ask for it and you will owe it to him. And with a restaurant, you’re not just getting service; you’re getting a product.
3. I make payments without getting receipts all the time. And if you’re using a credit card, then your statement is the receipt. If you’re paying cash, you don’t usually get a receipt from a restaurant, anyway (assuming a sit-down place). Further, if they have the money, why in hell are they going to bother tracking you down?

Now, if the food hasn’t arrived, then it’s a gray area, but you’d probably be within your rights to walk out without paying. But once the food is on the table in front of you, you are obligated to pay for in. Inconvenient? The law doesn’t care.

[Carlyjay]

@Kozmik

I didn’t pay for the packets of jam that I put in my takeout box. I paid in full for everything on my bill that I ordered and I even gave a tip. Did I steal?

Huh?

I didn’t mean to suggest that not paying for a complimentary item or service is stealing… I don’t see any suggestion of that in my previous post.

[Q.E.D]

@Kozmik

I didn’t pay for the packets of jam that I put in my takeout box. I paid in full for everything on my bill that I ordered and I even gave a tip. Did I steal?

Depends. Does the restaurant normally charge for them? If so, yes; if not, then no. “Didn’t pay” carries the implication that a debt is owed. There is no debt if there is no charge for the condiments, so the phrase “didn’t pay” is meaningless.

[Wallenstein]

@RealityChuck

2. The lawn example is probably the more irrelvant analogy I’ve ever seen on this board.

Fuck off, you’ve not exactly shone in the clarity stakes so far :rolleyes:

The lawn person may have chosen not to take the money, but you still owe it to him under – at the very least – an implied contract. He can come back later and ask for it and you will owe it to him. And with a restaurant, you’re not just getting service; you’re getting a product.

Which is exactly my point… you still owe the restaurant, even if you’ve not paid. But if no-one’s around to take payment then it seems reasonable to leave details of your address, so that you can return later to complete the terms of the contract.

3. I make payments without getting receipts all the time.

Thanks for sharing, but best practice is to get a receipt when paying for a service.

If you’re paying cash, you don’t usually get a receipt from a restaurant, anyway (assuming a sit-down place).

MMV… maybe you need to patronise a better class of restaurant?

Now, if the food hasn’t arrived, then it’s a gray area, but you’d probably be within your rights to walk out without paying. But once the food is on the table in front of you, you are obligated to pay for in. Inconvenient? The law doesn’t care.

Not quite…

Under the terms of the contract you have with any restaurant, the restaurant is obliged to provide food of satisfactory quality (Section 4 Supply of Goods & Services Act) and to cook and serve it with reasonable care and skill (Section 13 SGSA).

A restaurant is contractually bound to prepare and serve meals with reasonable care and skill (Section 13 Supply of Goods & Services Act) or otherwise pay compensation for breach.

As one of the purposes of eating at a restaurant is peace of mind and enjoyment, compensation can also include an element for distress and disappointment.

Being made to wait an unreasonable length of time to pay for your meal is (arguably) a cause of distress and disappointment. Therefore, some form of compensation is appropriate.

You would therefore be within your rights to claim that the level of distress voided the entire bill. The restuarant would then be in the position of taking you to court on a counter-claim that you made an unreasonable level of deduction to the bill.

The length of wait to which this would apply would be up to the court to decide.

[whiterabbit]

Once I was at a pizza place with some friends and we had to leave. Quickly. So we left cash on the table and went on our way.

A few weeks later we went back and it turned out that after we’d left somebody had stolen the money off the table before the waitress got to it. They were really insulting about it, which led to my never going back, even though we all paid our share again at that point. I felt really bad for the waitress, but they could have asked us WTF happened before assuming we just walked out on the check.

Sometimes leaving cash is a bad idea.

[Wallenstein]

@Frylock

Quality of service, I further WAG, is legally irrelevant, under all circumstances.

Just to clarify, this is absolutely NOT the case.

The quality of service - incl. rudeness by staff, as well as poor quality food - is integral to the contract you have with the restuarant.

[Frylock]

@e-logic

Just to clarify, this is absolutely NOT the case.

The quality of service - incl. rudeness by staff, as well as poor quality food - is integral to the contract you have with the restuarant.

Yeah, after thinking about it last night, I came to post on the issue you’ve brought up.

Despite my previous WAG, I want to bring up this question: When you go to a restaurant, are you paying for the food, or for the opportunity to have the food prepared and served to you? Isn’t the atmosphere of the restaurant at least part of the service provided, hence, part of what you are paying for?

If that’s right, then it might be that, given bad enough service, the amount you get by totalling up the menu items can be “negated” so that in the end, you don’t owe anything.

How to argue about this legally is a difficult question, I guess. But it seems like it might be possible.

I’m not sure if there’s a difference, legally, between simply walking out without paying, or alternatively, telling a manager “The service today was so bad as to cause me to owe you no money,” then leaving.

-Kris

[samclem]

@e-logic

Fuck off, you’ve not exactly shone in the clarity stakes so far :rolleyes:

Moderator slight warning

Remember, you’re still in General Questions at this point. Unacceptable.

samclem GQ moderator

[samclem]

@Frylock

Yeah, after thinking about it last night, I came to post on the issue you’ve brought up.

Despite my previous WAG, I want to bring up this question: When you go to a restaurant, are you paying for the food, or for the opportunity to have the food prepared and served to you? Isn’t the atmosphere of the restaurant at least part of the service provided, hence, part of what you are paying for?

If that’s right, then it might be that, given bad enough service, the amount you get by totalling up the menu items can be “negated” so that in the end, you don’t owe anything.

-Kris

While not a lawyer, I’m sure your WAG is incorrect.

[samclem]

@e-logic

The quality of service - incl. rudeness by staff, as well as poor quality food - is integral to the contract you have with the restuarant.

And, you are basing this on what legal expertese?

[Frylock]

@samclem

While not a lawyer, I’m sure your WAG is incorrect.

Which one, the OP, or the “revised” one?

-Kris

[Frylock]

@e-logic

Fuck off, you’ve not exactly shone in the clarity stakes so far :rolleyes:

Which is exactly my point… you still owe the restaurant, even if you’ve not paid. But if no-one’s around to take payment then it seems reasonable to leave details of your address, so that you can return later to complete the terms of the contract.
Thanks for sharing, but best practice is to get a receipt when paying for a service.
MMV… maybe you need to patronise a better class of restaurant?
Not quite…

Under the terms of the contract you have with any restaurant, the restaurant is obliged to provide food of satisfactory quality (Section 4 Supply of Goods & Services Act) and to cook and serve it with reasonable care and skill (Section 13 SGSA).

A restaurant is contractually bound to prepare and serve meals with reasonable care and skill (Section 13 Supply of Goods & Services Act) or otherwise pay compensation for breach.

As one of the purposes of eating at a restaurant is peace of mind and enjoyment, compensation can also include an element for distress and disappointment.

Being made to wait an unreasonable length of time to pay for your meal is (arguably) a cause of distress and disappointment. Therefore, some form of compensation is appropriate.

You would therefore be within your rights to claim that the level of distress voided the entire bill. The restuarant would then be in the position of taking you to court on a counter-claim that you made an unreasonable level of deduction to the bill.

The length of wait to which this would apply would be up to the court to decide.

I went looking for a “Goods and Services” act through google, and it looks like this is a British law. Anyone know what the equivalent in the USA would be? Or in any particular state within the USA?

-FrL-

[Stentor_2.5]

This actually reminds me of an incident I experienced in Florence. I had just been to an ATM, so when I had to pay my 8 euro bill I gave the counter man the fifty euro note I had. He refused to take, apparently worried that it was counterfeit. I tried to explain that I had gotten the note from a bank, but he would not accept this. Ultimately I went out and made a purchase with the fifty, and then returned and paid the restaurant with a twenty. I honestly wonder, though, would it have been illegal for me to simply not bother paying, seeing as I had made a good faith attempt to settle the bill.

[Wallenstein]

@samclem

And, you are basing this on what legal expertese?

Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

Where, under such a contract, the transferor transfers the property in goods in the course of a business, **there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality. **

(2A) For the purposes of this section and section 5 below, **goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances. **

(2B) If the transferee deals as consumer, the relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2A) above include any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the transferor, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labelling.

(2C) A public statement is not by virtue of subsection (2B) above a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2A) above in the case of a contract for the transfer of goods, if the transferor shows that—

a. at the time the contract was made, he was not, and could not
reasonably have been, aware of the statement,

b. before the contract was made, the statement had been withdrawn
in public or, to the extent that it contained anything which was
incorrect or misleading, it had been corrected in public, or

c. the decision to acquire the goods could not have been influenced

by the statement. 

(2D) Subsections (2B) and (2C) above do not prevent any public statement from being a relevant circumstance for the purposes of subsection (2A) above (whether or not the transferee deals as consumer) if the statement would have been such a circumstance apart from those subsections.

… which states that the goods supplied by the restaurant (ie. food) should be of a reasonable standard (incl. properly cooked, served hot where appropriate etc)

13 Implied term about care and skill

        In a contract for the supply of a service where the supplier is acting 
        in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the 
        supplier will carry out the service with reasonable care and skill.

A restaurant is required to serve food with “reasonable care and skill” - this precludes the waiters swearing at you, or dropping soup over your lap.

14 Implied term about time for performance

1. Where, under a contract for the supply of a service by a supplier acting in the course of a business, the time for the service to be carried out is not fixed by the contract, left to be fixed in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealing between the parties, **there is an implied term that the supplier will carry out the service within a reasonable time. **

2. What is a reasonable time is a question of fact.

The time taken to provide a service - incl. taking payment at the till - should be carried out “within a reasonable time”.

So if you are left waiting around, it’s a breach of contract by the restaurant.
http://www.netlawman.co.uk/acts/supply-of-goods-and-services-act-1982.php#14694