# 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:** 8
**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 14, 2020, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/141 "2020-01-14T14:44:08Z")
> [@pullin](#): > > The question was “Who is _responsible_ for paying the bill?” Not who might have to. The only answer is “the thief”. Period. Nope. Wrong. The thief is guilty of the crime of theft. That theft is independent of Bob’s debt to the restaurant. The debt continues to exist until the restaurant receives its due payment. ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/142 "2020-01-14T15:01:46Z")
Leaving money on the table is a common and expected way to pay a restaurant bill. I do this only when I the server is too slow for me to trust get my credit card and return the slip I sign in a timely manner. Imagine your waiter was never around and your meal took over an hour and a half as a result. Now, you are running late for the theater. Your waiter is still nowhere to be seen. Yeah, I’m leaving money on the table and leaving. Where that money goes after I’ve paid is the restaurant’s problem. They aren’t paying me to supervise their waiter or safeguard their assets. To create a new ridiculous hypothetical - Bob leaves money on the table to cover the bill. The thief comes in and ignores the cash but steals the silverware Bob used. The server accuses Bob of stealing the silverware. Is Bob responsible for the silverware? Should he wait around until the busboy picks it all up? > [@JohnT](#): > > I did put this on Twitter and the two lawyers who responded were quite confident that Bob owes the money, one likening it to mail being stolen - the interception of your payment does not nullify the debt owed. > > [https://twitter.com/JohnT15/status/1215399116924170242?s=20](https://twitter.com/JohnT15/status/1215399116924170242?s=20) There isn’t much consensus in that thread and the mailbox analogy is faulty. The customary way of paying a debt is to deliver payment to the person’s place of business. Mailing works as long as the payment arrives. If I leave cash on the restaurant’s table, I have delivered payment to the restaurant’s place of business and left it with them in the customary manner. > [@DrCube](#): > > [R]estaurants for at least a century if not longer have made it clear you can leave the money you owe right on the table and that works as payment. Once you’ve done that, your responsibility is finished. You’ve paid. Now the owner can decide how vigilant he wants to be to ensure theft doesn’t happen from that point forward. Right. For those who say that I should cover the tab again so the server doesn’t have to, I will say only that the server should never have to cover the tab. If I learn that the server will be out of pocket for the loss, I’ll pay it again but I will also report the restaurant to the Department of Labor (state and federal) and never return. Mistreating your employees is a worse offense than calling me a thief due to a misunderstanding. ---
**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 14, 2020, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/143 "2020-01-14T15:26:22Z")
Guys, leaving the money on the table is a convenience which _you_ take upon yourself. Leaving your money unattended as payment is not “established procedure” as the vast, vast majority of transactions at restaurants are of the completed - I handed them my money, they handed me my food and a receipt, in some order - variety. It may be your way of saying your time is more important than the bill, but it is not the established, written procedure _of the restaurant_ to accept transactions this way, (but, please, prove me wrong and provide citations showing that restaurants tell the customers via signage that this practice is fine). You don’t pay an authorized agent… the waiter, VISA, whoever… directly, you still owe the debt while that payment is in transition. By leaving it on the table, you left the payment in a transitory state… but the debt is still non-transitory. It exists. And when the quantum uncertainties come together to form reality, well, Schrodinger’s cat ate your money, but the debt is still there. Sorry. ---
**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 14, 2020, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/144 "2020-01-14T15:27:22Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > Leaving money on the table is a common and expected way to pay a restaurant bill. Yes, it’s a common way of doing things. You do it because it’s convenient. For that convenience, you are taking the (usually negligible) risk that something will go wrong and your obligation won’t be fulfilled. The risk is on you. > [@](#): > > To create a new ridiculous hypothetical - Bob leaves money on the table to cover the bill. The thief comes in and ignores the cash but steals the silverware Bob used. The server accuses Bob of stealing the silverware. Is Bob responsible for the silverware? Should he wait around until the busboy picks it all up? The thief is liable for his act of theft. Maybe you will be unjustly accused of theft of cutlery or other property. But the thief’s act of theft is completely separate from your obligation to the restaurant. You are liable for your obligation under the contract you entered into. Those are two separate things. ---
**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 14, 2020, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/145 "2020-01-14T15:30:12Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > Leaving money on the table is a common and expected way to pay a restaurant bill. Yes, it’s a common way of doing things. You do it because it’s convenient. For that convenience, you are taking the (usually negligible) risk that something will go wrong and your obligation won’t be fulfilled. The risk is on you. > [@](#): > > To create a new ridiculous hypothetical - Bob leaves money on the table to cover the bill. The thief comes in and ignores the cash but steals the silverware Bob used. The server accuses Bob of stealing the silverware. Is Bob responsible for the silverware? Should he wait around until the busboy picks it all up? The thief is liable for his act of theft. Maybe you will be unjustly accused of theft of cutlery or other property. But the thief’s act of theft is completely separate from your obligation to the restaurant. You are liable for your obligation under the contract you entered into. Those are two separate things. ---
**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 14, 2020, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/146 "2020-01-14T20:10:27Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Guys, leaving the money on the table is a convenience which _you_ take upon yourself. Leaving your money unattended as payment is not “established procedure” as the vast, vast majority of transactions at restaurants are of the completed - I handed them my money, they handed me my food and a receipt, in some order - variety. It may be your way of saying your time is more important than the bill, but it is not the established, written procedure _of the restaurant_ to accept transactions this way, (but, please, prove me wrong and provide citations showing that restaurants tell the customers via signage that this practice is fine). I believe that sign is posted right next to the sign saying it’s okay to eat your meal before you pay. And there clearly MUST be such a sign, explicitly posted, because how absurd would it be to think you’d be allowed to do that otherwise? Can you imagine, going into a department store and just sitting down in the aisle and eating one bag of chips after another? Walking over the electronics section and taking a DVD player out of its box, plugging it into a TV before grabbing a movie from the next shelf over and popping it in to watch it? What madness! So yes, there clearly must be an explicit sign in _every_ restaurant that allows you to eat before you pay, because it’s clearly impossible that there might be some established societal conventions regarding eating (and paying) at restaurants that are so established that they don’t need to be written out explicitly. ---
**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 14, 2020, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/147 "2020-01-14T20:18:43Z")
Lol, you know, it’s OK to admit you took the wrong side of a silly internet debate. The societal convention is yours. It is not the restaurants. It’s that simple. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/148 "2020-01-14T20:23:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The thief is morally responsible for paying the bill, because he stole the money. If the thief cannot be found, the restaurant has to eat the loss, for failing to exercise their due diligence in preventing theft. Unless they authorized the waitress to act on their behalf to stop people from stealing, and she agreed to cover the restaurant’s loss. Which she would be dumb to do, but sometimes people are dumb. Not the customer - he paid in good faith, and he owes no duty to the restaurant to make good their losses if they or the waitress screw up. > > Regards, > Shodan See if that tortured logic works the next time you mail a check to pay a bill and when they say they never got it, claim its the post office’s fault, and that you paid in “good faith”. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/149 "2020-01-14T20:27:56Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > … > > There isn’t much consensus in that thread and the mailbox analogy is faulty. The customary way of paying a debt is to deliver payment to the person’s place of business. Mailing works as long as the payment arrives. If I leave cash on the restaurant’s table, I have delivered payment to the restaurant’s place of business and left it with them in the customary manner. No, you delivered the payment to a piece of furniture, not to the agent of the business who is authorized to accept the payment on behalf of the owners. ---
**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 14, 2020, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/150 "2020-01-14T20:31:12Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Lol, you know, it’s OK to admit you took the wrong side of a silly internet debate. I’d have to be convinced I’m wrong first. After all, it’s not _my_ positions that naturally lead to absurd conclusions. > [@JohnT](#): > > The societal convention is yours. It is not the restaurants. It’s that simple. This is obviously, _demonstrably_ false, because otherwise _everybody_ who dropped money on the table and walked would be chased, because the restaurant employees wouldn’t even think to check the table before considering the person a dine-and-dasher. But you _are_ wrong - many (but not all) restaurants are perfectly aware and accepting of the convention that you can drop money on the table and walk. They only come after you if they think you haven’t dropped the money. Seriously, there’s merit the argument that _legally_, the customer is on the hook unless he can show a receipt. But every obviously false claim about how customers and restaurants interact _decreases_ your credibility and the credibility of the position you’re arguing for. ---
**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 14, 2020, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/151 "2020-01-14T21:21:48Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > But you _are_ wrong - many (but not all) restaurants are perfectly aware and accepting of the convention that you can drop money on the table and walk. They only come after you if they think you haven’t dropped the money. I’d like to focus back on this - exactly how _strange_ drop-and-go paying is. Consider the following scenario, chosen entirely at random: Man (we’ll call him Bob) in a restaurant finishes dining. Waitress slaps the 15 dollar tab on the table and says: “I’ll be right back”. Before she is able to return, Bob throws a 20 on the table and heads for the door. When the waitress returns to the table, she sees Bob is gone and there’s money on the table - a twenty. But the amount owed was only fifteen! She then proceeds _not_ to chase him down in the parking lot, instead assuming that _she can take the surplus money for herself_. This _without_ the customer’s explicit consent that he was giving her the remainder. You try to do this in _any_ other situation, be it as a walmart cashier, somebody running the ticket booth at a theater, or when you find a purse with ‘surplus’ money in it lying around - that would be called theft. You are not allowed to just lay claim to abandoned money or overpayments without attempting to find the owner and offer to return it. The only way the assumption of the 33% tip wouldn’t be theft would be if there were special unspoken rules and conventions regarding the payment of bills and tips at restaurants. But that would be silly, there can’t possibly be special unspoken rules and conventions regarding the payment of bills and tips at restaurants. Right? ---
**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 14, 2020, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/152 "2020-01-14T22:15:24Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > But that would be silly, there can’t possibly be special unspoken rules and conventions regarding the payment of bills and tips at restaurants. Right? Of course there is an unspoken convention regarding leaving money on the table. No one has disputed that. The question is who bears the burden when that unspoken convention breaks down and fails to satisfy the contract between the customer and the business? Who bears the risk of that failure? Yes, of course people do it all the time. But that doesn’t mean that the burden has shifted to the business. In the case of the failure of this convention, the fact remains that the business hasn’t been paid and it’s the customer’s obligation that has been unsatisfied. The business satisfied its end of the bargain–it supplied the service and the goods. Of course you can do this and 99.99999… percent of the time it’s fine, because nothing goes wrong. But if something does go wrong, you as the customer should be aware that the burden of the risk you took in going along with this unspoken convention–a very tiny risk though it is–is yours. ---
**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 14, 2020, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/153 "2020-01-14T22:37:19Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Of course there is an unspoken convention regarding leaving money on the table. No one has disputed that. Well, **JohnT** has, but that’s neither here nor there. (Or it’s both here _and_ there. Whichever.) > [@Acsenray](#): > > The question is who bears the burden when that unspoken convention breaks down and fails to satisfy the contract between the customer and the business? Who bears the risk of that failure? Yes, of course people do it all the time. But that doesn’t mean that the burden has shifted to the business. > > In the case of the failure of this convention, the fact remains that the business hasn’t been paid and it’s the customer’s obligation that has been unsatisfied. The business satisfied its end of the bargain–it supplied the service and the goods. > > Of course you can do this and 99.99999… percent of the time it’s fine, because nothing goes wrong. But if something does go wrong, you as the customer should be aware that the burden of the risk you took in going along with this unspoken convention–a very tiny risk though it is–is yours. Only if they catch me. Look, we can go around and around with this as long as you like, but I’m pretty confident that your actual responsibility hinges on who believes you. If nobody believes you when you say you placed the money on the table, then you are of course going to be stuck paying again or get sent to the kitchens or whatever. If you _are_ believed by whoever is making the determination, then I’m quite confident that you will not be required to pay the bill a second time, because leaving money on the table _is_ an accepted method of payment. You can make baseless and completely unsubstantiated claims to the contrary all day, but they’re not going to get more convincing with repetition. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/154 "2020-01-14T23:35:08Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Receipts. > > Guys, Bob still owes the money. It’s that simple. A receipt is merely evidence that Bob paid. Nothing requires that he have the receipt or demonstrate to a court any proof that he did nothing wrong. That is not how the United States of America works. Nobody is required to prove their innocence. Bob does not owe the money because Bob paid the money. If you or others just repeating and repeating this have any cites, I would love to read them. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/155 "2020-01-14T23:51:34Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Of course there is an unspoken convention regarding leaving money on the table. No one has disputed that. > > The question is who bears the burden when that unspoken convention breaks down and fails to satisfy the contract between the customer and the business? Who bears the risk of that failure? Yes, of course people do it all the time. But that doesn’t mean that the burden has shifted to the business. > > In the case of the failure of this convention, the fact remains that the business hasn’t been paid and it’s the customer’s obligation that has been unsatisfied. The business satisfied its end of the bargain–it supplied the service and the goods. > > Of course you can do this and 99.99999… percent of the time it’s fine, because nothing goes wrong. But if something does go wrong, you as the customer should be aware that the burden of the risk you took in going along with this unspoken convention–a very tiny risk though it is–is yours. Let’s try it this way. What do you believe are the terms of the contract that the restaurant and customer entered into? Everything runs on custom in these cases, right? You don’t get to eat for free because the restaurant failed to tell you that you have to pay, right? When it says “10.99” on the menu next to your food, that means local currency and not grams of silver. That silverware on the table is for your use at no additional charge. Etc. Etc. Etc. The whole thing is governed by unspoken and customary “usage of trade” ([usage of trade | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/usage_of_trade)) conditions absent any indication that the parties wish to depart from that custom in this particular transaction. So what about mode of payment? As the custom has arisen for decades that a patron is permitted to place his payment on the table and leave with no additional action required on his part, it has become an implied term of the contract: payment for the meal is complete when the money is left on the table. You seem to disagree with that. In your view, what are the terms for payment? ---
**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, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/156 "2020-01-15T00:49:00Z")
JohnT disputes that there is written _policy_ on the part restaurants which states this is OK. I am not disputing the existence of this social convention, as my posts make clear, Begbert. And, UV? I have literally cited two attorneys which claim the debt is still owed. ---
**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, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/157 "2020-01-15T00:52:09Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I’d have to be convinced I’m wrong first. After all, it’s not _my_ positions that naturally lead to absurd conclusions. > > This is obviously, _demonstrably_ false, because otherwise _everybody_ who dropped money on the table and walked would be chased, because the restaurant employees wouldn’t even think to check the table before considering the person a dine-and-dasher. > > But you _are_ wrong - many (but not all) restaurants are perfectly aware and accepting of the convention that you can drop money on the table and walk. They only come after you if they think you haven’t dropped the money. > > Seriously, there’s merit the argument that _legally_, the customer is on the hook unless he can show a receipt. But every obviously false claim about how customers and restaurants interact _decreases_ your credibility and the credibility of the position you’re arguing for. It’s a societal convention. Nothing more. Please cite me any written policy of any major restaurant chain which states that leaving the money in an unknown, unaccepted, and unaknowledged transitory state is acceptable as a form of payment. Thanks! ---
**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, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/158 "2020-01-15T00:58:32Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > It’s a societal convention. Nothing more. Please cite me any written policy of any major restaurant chain which states that leaving the money in an unknown, unaccepted, and unaknowledged transitory state is acceptable as a form of payment. > > Thanks! I already responded to this, and I consider this line of argument disingenuous and stupid. _Nothing_ about the ‘restaurant contract’ you speak of is written down (besides “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”) so by your arguments the people who eat don’t have to pay before leaving at all because there’s nothing _written down_ saying that they can’t accumulate up debt and pay it all at the end of the year. This is not the case, of course, because the ‘contract’ you are imagining is not written down at all - and isn’t expected or required to be. ---
**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, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/159 "2020-01-15T01:05:02Z")
I think the restaurant should eat the costs. During my brief experience with the restaurant business, it was the servers who foot the bill if the customer is gone and the bill is unpaid. If the patron was still inside, then a manager/owner would get involved with the discretion to eat the costs himself or call the police. There are lots of restaurants that take it out of tips and/or reduce base pay below the minimum. Either method is illegal. The one I worked at would only deduct from the server’s base pay, and only down to the minimum tipped wage for that week (weekly payroll). Any losses below that and the restaurant ate the difference, although there might be some stern words. Tips weren’t touched, unless it was that particular patron’s tip in which case yeah, the restaurant gets to keep that. Legal as far as I can tell. ~Max ---
**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, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/160 "2020-01-15T01:13:08Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > It’s a societal convention. Nothing more. Please cite me any written policy of any major restaurant chain which states that leaving the money in an unknown, unaccepted, and unaknowledged transitory state is acceptable as a form of payment. > > Thanks! Why do you believe that something has to be written in order to be a binding term of a contract? Let’s I walk into a bar and the bartender asks, “Would you like something to drink?” and I say, “I would like a Bud Light, please” and he hands it to be and I drink it. When he asks for money can I tell him to piss off? That we had no written contract and that he merely asked me if I would like something to drink and did not specify that there would be a charge for it and therefore I am under no obligation to pay? Now, change the scenario, all of the above happened, yet I was at a friend’s house. Do I have to pay? See, that’s what you are missing. Contracts are largely not in writing for almost everything in life, and the terms of the contract are implied from the surroundings and customary practices. Of course, I would owe the bar for the drink but not my friend. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132.md?page=9)