# The restaurant tab conundrum. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 8, 2020, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132 "2020-01-08T17:51:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/201 "2020-01-15T22:05:56Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > All you’re saying is that there is a lower risk in this situation. But it’s still your risk. Just because the risk is small doesn’t mean that the liability for that risk changes. You and I are looking from this in different ways. My default view is that when I leave the money behind in the restaurant, with intent to pay the restaurant, I am actually paying the restaurant. If I am _negligent_ in doing so, for example leaving it on the wrong table, or in the wrong room, or for the wrong amount, then that reimposes the obligation to pay. That’s why I think customary practice is important, because if I am paying in a conventional, customary manner then as soon as I leave the money behind my obligation is fulfilled. You seem to approach this from the restaurant’s point of view: the debt is repaid when the restaurant processes the payment. I’m not going to try and argue that my point of view is better or more correct than yours. But if you want to argue that yours is more correct than mine, be my guest. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/202 "2020-01-15T23:11:15Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > All you’re saying is that there is a lower risk in this situation. But it’s still your risk. Just because the risk is small doesn’t mean that the liability for that risk changes. You can assert this all day, similarly to how you can assert that you are a dead person who is posting from the grave. But I don’t buy if for one single second. _Laws_ have been cited saying explicitly that if it’s accepted custom that you can toss your cash down and walk, then when that happens _you have paid_. This means that the money is no longer yours, and thus that you have no obligation whatsoever to keep it from getting stolen and that you have accepted no risk. Of course, you’re accepting the risk that people won’t _believe_ you paid, but that’s materially different from what you’re saying - as best I can tell you’re saying that _even if the waitress **saw** you put down the money, you still must pay it a second time if a thief snags it after you leave but before it’s collected._ Seriously, put that in your hypothetical and smoke it. In that scenario, are you obligated to pay a second time or not? Seriously, answer that question - I’m curious if your argument is what you seem to be saying it is. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/203 "2020-01-15T23:18:21Z")
From the June 8th, 1998 edition of the NY Times\*: > [@](#): > > Dear Ann, > > I own a small restaurant, Italian, using my family’s recipes, cooking food famous throughout New York City and Jersey – we have been reviewed by the Times, the Post, others. > > I had a… a thing … with a customer the other day and I was wondering what you thought? > > This guy comes in. Sits down, our waitress approaches him, he orders a pastrami sandwich, bag chips, pop. Eats it. Leaves without paying! > > I go out! “Hey, buddy, whaddya doing?” He says he paid, just left the money on the table, that there must be a thief who grabbed it. Ann… these are my regular customers, Ann, there’s no thief! I knows these guys! > > Guy starts arguing about this! I go back inside – “Any of youse ever see a thief?” I ask the customers. No, Ann, to a man, they see no thief. Davie didn’t see a thief and he sees everything. If Davie says no thief, there’s no thief, Ann. > > “Any of youse see this man pay?” No, Ann, to a man, they did not see him pay. Not even Davie. > > Dis guy starts arguing… with my food in his stomach!.. that he doesn’t own me anything! That because he’s somehow out $20 (what he claims he put on the table) he somehow doesn’t need to reimburse me! > > Then the sunavabitch accuses the waitress… my lovely, Maria, the only thing I have which reminds me of her mother, may God rest her soul, the purest child ever placed on this Earth… of stealing his money. The fuckin’ nerve, Ann, the fuckin’ nerve. If it weren’t for Davie… and Chris… the guy would’ve gone down and I would be writing this from the Tombs, and where would my Maria be? > > Ann, I serve fantastic food the neighborhood loves. I’m still out the $7.54 it costs me to put a meal like that together, not to mention the $14.49+tax I charged him. I don’t care what this guyses story is, if he doesn’t pay me or Maria, he hasn’t paid. When Silvio did the same thing, walked off without paying, and we didn’t find his money, you know what Sil did? He fuckin’ paid again! Because he owed a debt! To me! Not to his memory! To me! > > Anyway, Ann, my question is this: This guy still owes me $15 and he insulted my daughter. Maria wants me to let it go and, this once, out of respect for her mother, may God rest her soul, I said “Let’s ask Ann, see if she says the guy still owes the debt. If she says no, I’ll fuggedaboutit. If she say’s not, I gotta do what I gotta do.” > > Ann, not a single person can prove this man paid. Not a single person can prove there was a thief. I, however, by reconciling my days receipts, can prove that I did not get paid for this exact bill. Does he still owe the debt? > > Anthony in Jersey \*Again, no. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/204 "2020-01-15T23:20:33Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > _Laws_ have been cited [DEL]If you mean the Uniform Commercial Code cited by **UltraVires** , that is not a law. It’s more like a handbook on how businesses should behave.[/DEL] It’s a law, sort of. All 50 states adopt the UCC as law, but not all of them adopt every chapter. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/205 "2020-01-15T23:21:32Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > You can assert this all day, similarly to how you can assert that you are a dead person who is posting from the grave. But I don’t buy if for one single second. > > _Laws_ have been cited saying explicitly that if it’s accepted custom that you can toss your cash down and walk, then when that happens _you have paid_. This means that the money is no longer yours, and thus that you have no obligation whatsoever to keep it from getting stolen and that you have accepted no risk. > > Of course, you’re accepting the risk that people won’t _believe_ you paid, but that’s materially different from what you’re saying - as best I can tell you’re saying that _even if the waitress **saw** you put down the money, you still must pay it a second time if a thief snags it after you leave but before it’s collected._ > > Seriously, put that in your hypothetical and smoke it. In that scenario, are you obligated to pay a second time or not? > > Seriously, answer that question - I’m curious if your argument is what you seem to be saying it is. Cite on these laws. Because I haven’t seen them. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/206 "2020-01-15T23:28:31Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > _Laws_ have been cited saying explicitly that if it’s accepted custom that you can toss your cash down and walk, then when that happens _you have paid_. Not AFAICT, though IANAL. The point of the quoted laws seems to be that tossing down cash and walking can be an accepted method of paying, but not that the payer is off the hook if the attempt to pay doesn’t succeed. > [@begbert2](#): > > Of course, you’re accepting the risk that people won’t _believe_ you paid, but that’s materially different from what you’re saying - as best I can tell you’re saying that _even if the waitress **saw** you put down the money, you still must pay it a second time if a thief snags it after you leave but before it’s collected._ Yup, that’s exactly what happened to me and my friends in the incident I described in an earlier post. Several other clients and waitstaff saw the thief grab our money from the table and run off with it as we were in the process of leaving. There wasn’t the slightest doubt about what had happened. We still had to pay, and acknowledged that we had to pay, the bill that had not been successfully paid in our first attempt, through no fault of our own. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/207 "2020-01-15T23:28:35Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > From the June 8th, 1998 edition of the NY Times\*: > > \*Again, no. Dude, just present your hypotheticals as hypotheticals. You may be trying to be cute, but the strikes me as attempting to bolster your position with blatant falsehoods masquerading as facts. And seriously, is the issue whether the person has paid, or whether he is _believed_? Because they’re separate issues. I will concede in a heartbeat that if the restaurant doesn’t believe him when he claims he’s paid that they might try to compel him to pay. But that’s entirely separate from the question of whether he _should_ be required to pay if everyone involved knows that he did in fact leave money on the table as he’s claimed. > [@Max\_S](#): > > If you mean the Uniform Commercial Code cited by **UltraVires** , that is not a law. It’s more like a handbook on how businesses should behave. > > ~Max Okay, I stand corrected and don’t fucking care. It’s still a lot more solid than the unsubstantiated opinions that are supporting the opposing opinions. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/208 "2020-01-15T23:30:04Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Cite on these laws. Because I haven’t seen them. Sorry, you meant the very vague citations UV made to the UCC. That isn’t exactly validation as it just pushed the issue off to “manner”. And in the vast, vast majority of restaurant transactions, the “manner” is to make direct payment, so I don’t know how this helps the “Bob doesn’t need to pay his owed debt” crowd. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/209 "2020-01-15T23:31:04Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Dude, just present your hypotheticals as hypotheticals. You may be trying to be cute, but the strikes me as attempting to bolster your position with blatant falsehoods masquerading as facts. > > And seriously, is the issue whether the person has paid, or whether he is _believed_? Because they’re separate issues. I will concede in a heartbeat that if the restaurant doesn’t believe him when he claims he’s paid that they might try to compel him to pay. But that’s entirely separate from the question of whether he _should_ be required to pay if everyone involved knows that he did in fact leave money on the table as he’s claimed. > > Okay, I stand corrected and don’t fucking care. It’s still a lot more solid than the unsubstantiated opinions that are supporting the opposing opinions. Not a single person has bothered to argue the restaurant owners side. He is still out the COGS required to make the food. It’s in the man’s stomach. The man didn’t pay. There is no record of him paying. If it’s my restaurant, the man still owes. It’s that simple. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/210 "2020-01-15T23:32:42Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > [DEL]If you mean the Uniform Commercial Code cited by **UltraVires** , that is not a law. It’s more like a handbook on how businesses should behave.[/DEL] > It’s a law, sort of. All 50 states adopt the UCC as law, but not all of them adopt every chapter. > > ~Max In my state, UCC 2-511 as cited earlier becomes [Fl. stat. 672.511](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0600-0699/0672/Sections/0672.511.html). Word for word: “(2) _Tender of payment is sufficient when made by any means or in any manner current in the ordinary course of business unless the seller demands payment in legal tender and gives any extension of time reasonably necessary to procure it_.” Apologies to **UltraVires** and **begbert2**. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/211 "2020-01-15T23:34:52Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > _Laws_ have been cited saying explicitly that if it’s accepted custom that you can toss your cash down and walk, then when that happens _you have paid_. That has not happened, not in this thread. The reference to the U.C.C. does not say what you have written above. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/212 "2020-01-15T23:36:38Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Not AFAICT, though IANAL. The point of the quoted laws seems to be that tossing down cash and walking can be an accepted method of paying, but not that the payer is off the hook if the attempt to pay doesn’t succeed. My read is that you would have a reasonable argument that you _had_ successfully paid, and that by the time the money was on the table it was as much in the restaurant’s possession as if it was resting in their cash drawer. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Yup, that’s exactly what happened to me and my friends in the incident I described in an earlier post. Several other clients and waitstaff saw the thief grab our money from the table and run off with it as we were in the process of leaving. There wasn’t the slightest doubt about what had happened. We still had to pay, and acknowledged that we had to pay, the bill that had not been successfully paid in our first attempt, through no fault of our own. In all seriousness, I think it would depend somewhat where exactly you were “in the process of leaving”. While you’re still sitting at the table it can reasonably be argued that the money is still at least somewhat in your possession - the same way any food still on your plates is. A waitperson couldn’t just walk up and take either away without first getting your permission. But once you have actually stood up and gotten a bit of distance from the table, the food can now be cleared without consulting you, and the money is similarly no longer something they need to seek your permission to take. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/213 "2020-01-15T23:40:16Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Not a single person has bothered to argue the restaurant owners side. He is still out the COGS required to make the food. It’s in the man’s stomach. The man didn’t pay. There is no record of him paying. If it’s my restaurant, the man still owes. It’s that simple. Were I at your restaurant, I would accurately point out you’re accusing me of being a liar and robbing me, and would only pay you with the promise that neither I nor any of my friends would be buying from you again. ETA: And would only pay you if I deemed the amount inconsequential. If I had been hosting a party there and dropped hundreds of dollars, I’d refuse to pay you a second time. (Not that I’d be paying in cash anyway, but hypotheticals and all.) ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/214 "2020-01-15T23:45:22Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Were I at your restaurant, I would accurately point out you’re accusing me of being a liar and robbing me, and would only pay you with the promise that neither I nor any of my friends would be buying from you again. You do realize what an empty threat that is right? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/215 "2020-01-15T23:51:07Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > And in the vast, vast majority of restaurant transactions, the “manner” is to make direct payment, so I don’t know how this helps the “Bob doesn’t need to pay his owed debt” crowd. I was sort of under the impression we were explicitly talking about the sorts of restaurants where this type of payment isn’t abnormal. So not places where you’re explicitly expected to pay at the register, or where you’re supposed to pay in advance. Though that _does_ raise a question - suppose you’re standing at the counter, eye to eye with the cashier, and place the 20 on the counter rather than placing it directly in their sweaty palm - and some jerk grabs it and runs on the spot. Do you have to pay a second time in that case? It seem that some people here are arguing _yes_. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/216 "2020-01-15T23:52:52Z")
> [@Grrr](#): > > You do realize what an empty threat that is right? It’s about as empty as the restaurant’s threat to imprison me when I try to walk out, honestly. And, as edited, I wouldn’t concede with such an inconsequential threat unless the amount of money they’re trying to steal from me is similarly inconsequential. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/217 "2020-01-15T23:55:31Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Not a single person has bothered to argue the restaurant owners side. He is still out the COGS required to make the food. It’s in the man’s stomach. The man didn’t pay. There is no record of him paying. If it’s my restaurant, the man still owes. It’s that simple. This is GD, right? I cited the law and people are still just asserting things. The U.C.C. is the law adopted by all 50 states. Some portions have not been updated by some states, but this is basic stuff adopted by all of them. The restaurant owner’s argument is a bullshit losing argument. If it is your restaurant, then the man does not owe. Can you cite me for a reason that he does owe? The restaurant is out the COGS. If the restaurant does not want that risk, then inform your customers that money laid on the table is not an accepted method of payment. Short of that, it is poor form in GD simply to keep vomiting out the same unsupported garbage. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/218 "2020-01-15T23:56:34Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > This is GD, right? Ummm… ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/219 "2020-01-15T23:59:43Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > From the June 8th, 1998 edition of the NY Times\*: > > \*Again, no. I know you have the little asterisk there, but it looks like you are saying the guy isn’t responsible. But he still owes the $14whatever+tax. I appreciate your tone but would rather you not pretend you read that story somewhere. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2020, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/220 "2020-01-16T00:06:30Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Ummm… IMHO, not GD. **Grrr!** was explicitly interested people’s opinions, legalese notwithstanding. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132.md?page=12)