That seems silly to make it a criminal matter. What if your meal is served with maggots inside of it? You still must pay before walking out or risk arrest?
I would think that an “implicit agreement” means civil contract not criminal theft.
I don’t disagree, but disliking it won’t change things. If there’s something seriously wrong with the food, take it up with the manager. If you grabbed too much and decide you can’t finish, that’s another matter.
If there are actual criminal charges, then that’s a case for a trial; individual police officers can arrest based upon what they know about the situation, even if what you did is not technically illegal.
I know someone who was hauled off by the cops for a billing dispute. They eventually “won”, but they spent the night in jail for their troubles.
You gotta decide, stand your ground, call their bluff?, or just pay up and never come the frack back and vote with your wallet. Remember you may be pissed off and willing to fight. But so may the manager. And the cops may be looking for something to do that night.
I am not trying to give you shit (he said with a wink) but that’s some meek bullshit on your part.
Oh we argued it for a good while! I even told her I’d eat it then go throw it up in the bathroom. She didn’t really say much.
I don’t know, I guess I gave up and just wanted to get out of there.
I’m guessing the idea is supposed to be prevention. If you know that you may have to pay a “fine” for leaving half your food in your plate, you’re less likely to grab three plates before even sitting down to eat. After all, all you can eat buffets don’t have a “you can grab food once” policy.
You should have just replied with, “Ok, we’ll just deduct that amount from the tip”.
I still can’t get over this arresting for a dispute over a business transaction.
Let’s say that you come to my cake store. You ask me to bake you a chocolate cake that says “Let’s Go SDMB” and I agree to do so for $10.
You walk back in and I hand you a pile of dogshit in a box with the words “Go Fuck Yourself” in white icing on top. You say, “I am going to show this to my neighbors so that nobody else does business with you!” and walk out.
Are posters saying that you could go to jail for failure to pay the $10 tab?
Well, ignoring your EXTREME example, yes.
In your example, the cop will likely show up, roll his eyes and leave.
In more questionable disputes, yes, there is a fair chance IMO the cop will haul you off to jail. Remember, the cop isnt there to determine guilt or innocence. All they do is determine if there is a reasonable chance that someone should be arrested and processed. If they think there is, off you go.
Like I said, I KNOW someone who got on their business dispute high horse and WAS hauled off to jail.
It’s *a civil matter. *Any policeman with half a brain would say as much and leave. Now sure, the merchant could insist upon a citizens arrest whereupon you could insist upon a arrest back, for fraud.
That being said, once the cop is actually there and threatening to arrest you, go along with whatever he wants and then have your lawyer settle it for you. My best guess in your example is that the customer was rude and obnoxious to the cop, never a good idea.
ianal
I’d be careful there. Failure to pay for services can certainly be construed as THEFT. On the other hand, I don’t think they generally arrest for claims of fraud.
It could certainly go either way based on how the cop feels about things, but like you said, if the cop shows up, if he’s getting pissy towards you, you better just pay the mechant and get out of dodge.
Well, yes, it’s theft IF the merchant has provided said services. If I have ordered a meal, and said meal is not edible- then no services have been provided, thus it’s not theft.
THATS the part thats a civil matter, whether adequate services have been provided. All the cop is going to care about is whether the services in general have been provided and that you have or have not paid for them.
Tell you what. Go find an eating establishment, find an excuse to get into a dust up with the manager so that “I aint paying for this!”, insist the cops get called to settle this and let us know how it goes if you are so sure of yourself.
Exactly, it is a civil matter.
And like I said, once the cops are there, go along with what they want you to do at that point in time.
However, in fact, one merchant did call the police on me in a similar circumstance, and that’s why I used that line- that is exactly what the police officer said “This is a civil matter”. He explained to the “merchant” that I had provided the merchant with my business card, thus the merchant had normal legal recourse to collect a debt.
The police dept is not there to collect debts or settle civil matters.
And my friend was arrested for failure to pay. Fortunately the prosecuter dropped it, but still, my friend got a night in pokey for his troubles. In any case my example trumps your aint gonna happen because it didnt happen to me example. If you want to count on proper interpretation of the law by a cop every time have at it.
No, not at all. Like I said, if the Police officer gets there and sez “Pay the man”, you then pay the man. If you argue and get confrontational with the cop, you’re going to have a rough time of it, you end up in handcuffs. Which I am doubtless certain is exactly what your friend did- he gave the cop a ration of shit and got arrested for it. If it had been a crime then the DA would have brought charges, but the DA ain’t that stupid, he actually knows the law.
OTOH, if the merchant argues and gives the cop a attitude, then the merchant ain’t gonna be happy either.
But the police may not act as a judge and adjucate civil matters nor may they act as private bill collectors for a merchant. In CA, generally the Police officer is not really arresting a shoplifter- the merchant signs a “citizens arrest” complaint.*
I would not call the police in a sitrep like this, but if the merchant did I’d simply explain to the Police Officer that I believed this was a civil matter as the merchant did not perform the services he was wanting to get paid for. I would give the merchant my lawyers card and tell the merchant he may have his attorney contact mine if he wanted to pursue the matter. I’d be polite and non-confrontational. I would not leave in handcuffs, I am sure.
I want to point out that just because a Police officer arrested someone for some conduct it does not mean that conduct was illegal or the Police officer knew the right law. A police officer is not the District Attorney. Now, if the DA brought charges, I’d be inclined to accept the conduct could be illegal. Of course only a Judge could make the final decision in the particular case.
Since the DA did not bring charges, there does not seem to be any actual illegal conduct. A arrest does not mean anything was illegal, other than stupidity by pissing off a cop, and that’s *Darwinian *criminal.
Again, never argue with the man with a badge, gun and handcuffs. Say “Yes Officer,”, and if you must “Am I free to go?” and if things get hairy "I want to speak to my attorney". Never argue with a cop. You will lose. If you want to argue, let your lawyer argue with the DA in a Courtroom.
In your friends case, he should speak to his attorney about the “arrest”. ianal.
- wiki "Rights of store operators
In the state of California, and in most cases the rest of the United States and other countries, store employees and managers have certain powers of arrest. Store officials may detain for investigation (for a reasonable length of time), the person whom they have probable cause to believe is attempting to take or has unlawfully taken merchandise.[citation needed] At the very least, staff usually have citizen’s arrest powers.
Generally, in the United States, the store employees who detain suspects outside of and inside the store premises are allowed by state statute limited powers of arrest and have the power to initiate criminal arrests or civil sanctions, or both, depending upon the policy of the retailer and the state statutes governing civil demands and civil recovery for shoplifting as reconciled with the criminal laws of the jurisdiction.[2][not in citation given]"
But that’s where you’re wrong. IANAL, but I can’t imagine anything legally wrong with a restaurant, whether buffet or not, that charges an additional $3 if you don’t finish something on the menu.
If the menu clearly tells you what the terms of the deal are, such as “if you don’t finish, you owe $3 more,” then the deal has two parts. You agree to pay $10 for the cake, and you agree to pay an additional $3 if you don’t finish it. You haven’t completely bought and paid for it until both parts of the transaction are done.
You can’t buy the cake and then say “I want to ignore the second part of the price.”
Here’s another example. Imagine an mail-order cake store. The catalog says “Cake, $10. Shipping not included.” On the order form, shipping is listed as $3, and there’s no option to collect it from the factory. You buy a cake. You pay $10, and then demand they ship it for free. Why?
What would they say? NO. When you agreed to purchase this cake, you also agreed, as part of the transaction, to pay shipping. The charge for shipping was clearly stated.
In that example, I think your error is more clear. You bought the cake as part of a transaction with more than one term. By buying the cake, you agreed to all of those terms–and you can’t demand to ignore one after buying the food.
In exactly the same way, if a restaurant menu says “cake $10, $3 additional fee if you don’t finish”, then when you buy the cake, you are agreeing to (1) pay $10 for the cake, and (2) Pay $3 extra if you don’t finish it.
You also say:
Now, I would say that if there is such a charge on the menu, the answer is, as you say, “no dice”–but it’s not “no dice, I can buy the food and ignore part of the deal.” It’s “no dice, I’m not buying from you if you put a silly restriction on my purchase.”
Don’t like the terms, don’t buy the cake. It’s not different than if the price is higher than you like–the seller gets to propose a price and terms, and you decide if you want to agree to them. You don’t have to shop at a store that demands you agree to silly terms, and nobody has to sell anything to you on your own terms.
This is the part that I don’t get. In all other instances it is a civil matter. If I don’t pay my doctor, dentist, credit card bill, bar tab, cable bill, etc. it is not a criminal theft; it is a civil matter that they can recover damages from.
He’s wrong. Now just running out the back door and not paying is theft. But a civil dispute is not theft.
So…simply because the menu states they will charge extra for unfinished food (off the menu, not buffet) they can legally do so?
What if the menu said you must chew each bite at least 50 times or that you must stand on your head through the meal? What’s to stop them from printing any silly requirement they can dream up on the menu? Just because it’s there makes it “part of the deal” and, therefore, enforceable?
If you take a plate of food from the buffet and don’t finish it, it makes sense to charge extra for that in the spirit of preventing waste. The restaurant’s profit goes down with each additional trip you make to the buffet. However, with items ordered off the menu, the restaurant sets the portion and the price. Their profit is the same whether you eat all of it or eat none of it.
Suppose those fixed portions are just too large for you to finish? Should they be allowed to penalize you for wanting to finish it at home?
There is a sign at my vet’s office stating that unattended children will be given a cappuccino and a puppy and sent home. Can you be forced to adopt a puppy because there was a sign that spelled out the terms?
IANAL either, but I have my doubts that the $3 statement on the menu or the unattended children sign would hold up in court.