# 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:** 9
**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, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/161 "2020-01-15T01:28:44Z")
> [@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) I’m not convinced by the merit of that analogy. The hypothetical in this thread involves payment being made on restaurant premises. The payment you mail would ostensibly be stolen from your own mailbox, on your property. If you could somehow prove that the payment was stolen in transit, and not from your own property, I imagine the liability would have been different. It’s also a bad analogy because cash payments by mail is very much against custom practice, and cheques aren’t actually payment. Another thought: it doesn’t actually matter whether Bob gave the money to the server or just left it on the table while she wasn’t looking. From Bob’s perspective, the scenario in the original OP is identical to a scenario where he puts the money straight in the server’s hand, and the server still runs out after him and lies that he didn’t pay. He still has zero evidence. It may be that it is ultimately the customer’s responsibility to obtain a receipt. I feel like the law is settled on that question, but I don’t know how it stands. Surely there are untold numbers of small claims court cases where one party forgot to obtain a receipt for a cash payment. Preponderance of the evidence means one party has nothing and the other party has a written invoice date and time-stamped, which both parties acknowledge is authentic. It would appear that the side with evidence prevails. ETA: I’m not sure how far “custom” would go to offset hard evidence. Your thoughts, **UltraVires**? ~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, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/162 "2020-01-15T01:31:42Z")
The issue of evidence is a red herring. The OP doesn’t present a question about what Bob can prove or what the restaurant can prove. It’s a pure question about who bears the obligation. Just assume Bob can prove he left the money on the table and that someone stole it. The obligation to pay still rests on Bob’s shoulders. ---
**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, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/163 "2020-01-15T01:37:26Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I just want to point out that this is NOT an equivalent scenario. A more analogous situation would be: you get your paycheck by mail. Someone goes through your mail and takes it, and cashes it. Who, if anyone, is responsible for the loss of income? That’s easy. Whoever cashed the cheque is responsible. I mean the business whose bank account drew funds against the employer’s bank account. Be it your local Walmart or even an actual bank. ~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 15, 2020, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/164 "2020-01-15T01:42:57Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > The issue of evidence is a red herring. The OP doesn’t present a question about what Bob can prove or what the restaurant can prove. It’s a pure question about who bears the obligation. Just assume Bob can prove he left the money on the table and that someone stole it. The obligation to pay still rests on Bob’s shoulders. I was just thinking, if it was stipulated that Bob and the server were totally innocent, that would be extremely relevant to who I think should be responsible. As I said above, in that case I think it should be the restaurant, although they can push some of that onto the server. But in practice, I don’t think it is likely at all that both parties would stipulate to such a statement. ~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, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/165 "2020-01-15T01:44:35Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > ETA: I’m not sure how far “custom” would go to offset hard evidence. Your thoughts, **UltraVires**? > > ~Max I agree with Ascenray only on the evidentiary point. We are assuming that Bob has placed the money on the table for the purposes of the thread. We are in “God Mode” where we know all relevant facts. The courts don’t know that. This is how I see the scenario playing out if the restaurant pursued it. The police are called. The restaurants says that Bob left without paying. Bob says bullshit, he laid the money down right there (puts his finger on the table for emphasis). The police say that this is a civil matter as both sides are claiming something different. The restaurant sues Bob in small claims court for $20 (probably wouldn’t happen, but bear with me). The judge is going to ask each side to tell their story. We would have other details here as well. How many people were in the restaurant? What was the lighting like? Did Bob run out the door or walk calmly? How far out the door did Bob get? Does Bob have a history of running out on checks? Have there been other thefts at this restaurant? Having a receipt would be favorable evidence for Bob, but a receipt is only one piece of evidence and its absence would be explained by the very fact that we are debating: he wouldn’t have one if he just left the money on the table, so that’s not really a strike against his story as nobody who used this customary method of payment would ever have a receipt. If the facts are even, then Bob wins because the restaurant did not convince the judge by a preponderance (50%+1) of the evidence. That’s not to say that Bob won’t be unjustly found liable. The system isn’t perfect. But I thought the premise was that based solely off of what we know in God Mode, then who is responsible. And it is certainly the restaurant. ---
**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, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/166 "2020-01-15T02:03:52Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Having a receipt would be favorable evidence for Bob, but a receipt is only one piece of evidence and its absence would be explained by the very fact that we are debating: he wouldn’t have one if he just left the money on the table, so that’s not really a strike against his story as nobody who used this customary method of payment would ever have a receipt. What if the restaurant argues that the “customary method” of leaving cash unattended - or even paying cash without getting a receipt - is equivalent to taking on the potential liability of having that payment contended? For example, all other things equal a cash payment to a landlord won’t stand up in court without a receipt, even if the landlord accepts or demands cash payments. I don’t have a formal cite but it’s common knowledge that you are just opening yourself up to eviction if you don’t demand a receipt for a cash rent payment. ~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, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/167 "2020-01-15T02:05:38Z")
The theft from the mail and the improper cashing of a check are not relevant because you have written contracts with your bank, the employer has one with its bank, and there are federal laws and contractual written terms for those mail and banking which override customary expectations and general property law. ---
**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, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/168 "2020-01-15T02:19:53Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > What if the restaurant argues that the “customary method” of leaving cash unattended - or even paying cash without getting a receipt - is equivalent to taking on the potential liability of having that payment contended? > > For example, all other things equal a cash payment to a landlord won’t stand up in court without a receipt, even if the landlord accepts or demands cash payments. I don’t have a formal cite but it’s common knowledge that you are just opening yourself up to eviction if you don’t demand a receipt for a cash rent payment. > > ~Max Well, again, we are talking about evidentiary requirements and making the assumption that the landlord perjures himself in court by testifying that you didn’t pay him. The advice to get a receipt is to provide you with evidence in case the landlord lies. The equivalent to this scenario would be that you shouldn’t leave money on the table because the restaurant could steal your money and then lie in court that they saw you leave without paying. That could be a good reason to protect yourself if you feel you must by never leaving money on the table, but it doesn’t change the facts. The restaurant could argue that the “customary method” is an assumption of the risk by the customer, but they owe you a duty of due care while you are there. The fact that they, and others in the trade, have historically accepted this payment method, have never advised their customers not to do that or affirmatively disclaimed such liability, have taken no steps (no CCTV or other supervision) to deter theft in their restaurants, and that they have dominion and control over where the table where you left your money is all more than sufficient to defeat that argument. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/169 "2020-01-15T02:32:55Z")
Question for those arguing that the custom of the restaurant and the fact that Bob understands the custom results in the restaurant having responsibility — let us say that I am driving through town and I stop for lunch at this eatery for the first and only time in my life. I leave cash on the table not knowing the custom of the restaurant at all, and walk out. The money is stolen. If I don’t know the custom, do I have a different level of responsibility than Bob, who does? ---
**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, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/170 "2020-01-15T02:42:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Huh. Two posts that contradict each other. Glad we have them in writing. > > Question for those arguing that the custom of the restaurant and the fact that Bob understands the custom results in the restaurant having responsibility — let us say that I am driving through town and I stop for lunch at this eatery for the first and only time in my life. > > I leave cash on the table not knowing the custom of the restaurant at all, and walk out. The money is stolen. If I don’t know the custom, do I have a different level of responsibility than Bob, who does? The posts do not contradict each other at all. Not at all. As I have said throughout the thread, these implied terms by custom can certainly be overridden by express terms, written or oral, in a contract. The restaurant can specify that you pay in Euros, or by credit or debit card only (where allowed by law). But they have to let you know of this. It matters not if you know the custom of the particular restaurant. It matters that it is customary in the restaurant trade as a whole that this is accepted. If this particular restaurant has a policy that is different than other restaurants, then burden is on them to make you aware of that contrary custom and thereby make it an express term of your contract with them. ---
**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, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/171 "2020-01-15T02:58:47Z")
Dup ---
**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, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/172 "2020-01-15T03:00:24Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > The police say that this is a civil matter as both sides are claiming something different. The difference between a civil and a criminal matter is not whether two sides are claiming something different. Otherwise there would never be any criminal matters when the defendant denied the charges. And wait what? Duty of care? That’s an issue for negligence. Negligence is irrelevant here. The sole question is who whether Bob has discharged his obligations by putting his money on the table and leaving. A restaurant might have certain duties of care, such as not to poison its customers or leave hazardous spills on the floor, but it has no duty of care to monitor whether Bob is leaving money out where someone might take it. That’s silly. If restaurant bore such a duty, they would prohibit their customers from leaving money on the table without alerting the staff of it. ---
**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, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/173 "2020-01-15T03:37:11Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > The difference between a civil and a criminal matter is not whether two sides are claiming something different. Otherwise there would never be any criminal matters when the defendant denied the charges. > > And wait what? Duty of care? That’s an issue for negligence. Negligence is irrelevant here. The sole question is who whether Bob has discharged his obligations by putting his money on the table and leaving. > > A restaurant might have certain duties of care, such as not to poison its customers or leave hazardous spills on the floor, but it has no duty of care to monitor whether Bob is leaving money out where someone might take it. That’s silly. If restaurant bore such a duty, they would prohibit their customers from leaving money on the table without alerting the staff of it. In my experience, there are very few criminal charges for failing to pay a check. I’m not familiar with other states, but here it requires an intent to defraud. In addition to not paying, you must prove that the customer ordered the meal all the time never having the intent to pay. That’s a tough hill to climb which is why it is usually civil. I should have added that cops usually let it go when both sides are saying something different AND there is no other evidence one way or the other. I suppose if the police wanted to clog the criminal courts with guys like Bob, they could, but it would be waste of time. It’s pretty common for people to refuse to pay because the food was bad. You can’t arrest all of those people. You would be turning contract disputes into crimes. Yes, duty of care. I expressed that inartfully, and you are right that is a negligence term, but it informs the relative obligations of the parties. If the restaurant generally must use due care to prevent theft, it cannot turn around in a contract matter and say that it is all Bob’s fault because they are under no obligation to do anything with respect to the money he left for them. They are. That duty is part of the underlying factual assumption of the contract. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/174 "2020-01-15T13:48:16Z")
The waitress didn’t leave Bob’s food on his table while he was away. She ensured the order was delivered into his custody, and that it was accurate and acceptable. He owes the restaurant the same prudent courtesy when settling the tab. The point of the tab is NOT to lighten the diner’s wallet by $20. It is to get $20 into the custody of the waitress, who turns around and makes sure the restaurant gets custody of the $15 owed for the meal. Bob failed to ensure the waitress took custody of the $20. Bob was robbed, but he still owes the bill. ---
**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, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/175 "2020-01-15T15:50:11Z")
Looking in old 1960 newspaper accounts of the JFK-Nixon debates, I found this on page B-3 of the Wednesday, May 4th edition of the Atlanta Constitution\*: > [@](#): > > Dear Abby, > > I went to the strangest restaurant! Wonderful food, great service, but the weirdest thing happened at the end – I put my payment in some sort of box with a cat and a vial of poison! > > No, no, I’m not the weirdo here, Abby. This is the odd thing – the restaurant doesn’t ask me to put my payment in the box (just disregard the cat and the poison, OK? It, uh, was not an optimal outcome if you were the cat’s owner. Or the cat, for that matter. But I digress.) – I just put this payment in the box, expecting the payment to be there when the restaurant opens the box. It’s what I always do. > > And then shit started happening, Abby, weird shit. > > Reality split. No, I’m not kidding, reality f-in _split_ Abby, and it was like I was in Many Worlds at once, where all of a sudden an infinite number of possibilities could arise because of the nature of the situation, all the potential observers who may or may not be watching… I mean, holy shit, Abby, it was _trippy_. Some next-level [Coherence](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2866360/) stuff, honestly. > > And then, my fucking luck! All these potential realities collapsed where the following happened: > > 1. I ate my food > 2. Left the payment on the table, in the box > 3. _Some asshole just steals my money!_ > 4. Not a single person saw me leave my money or the damned thief taking it! Just my damned luck! All these quantum realities collapsing and I get stuck in the one where I can’t prove I paid or that my money was stolen! WTF? Why does this shit keep happening to me, Abby? > 5. So the restaurant says I owe them another $14.45! Because they, who went through the same process, claim that at the end of the reality wave collapse I had still eaten the food (and, yes, I was burping that shit up for 3 hours after this) and they still had not received payment. > > Abby, you’re the smartest person I know. In the quantum state that was that stupid box, did I actually pay the restaurant if the restaurant opened that box and found only 1 dead cat? > > Besties, > > Erwin \*Not really. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/176 "2020-01-15T15:55:44Z")
**Moderator Warning** > [@Grrr](#): > > Dude, come the fuck on. If you really are a lawyer, you have got to be the worst one on the planet. Attack the post, not the poster. This is an official warning for personal insults. ---
**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, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/177 "2020-01-15T16:33:53Z")
Y’all: “Hey, throwing my cash on the table and walking off is something that restaurants love!” Restaurants: "[Here’s a 5-page document painstakingly detailing cash handling procedures, so, sure! Go ahead and put that money in a transitory state! We love it!](https://dining.usu.edu/employees/pdf_pp/110%20Cash%20Handling%20Procedures%20June%202016.pdf) WikiHow - How to pay at restaurants, with pictures!: [How to Eat at a Sit Down Restaurant (with Pictures) - wikiHow](https://www.wikihow.com/Eat-at-a-Sit-Down-Restaurant#Paying-and-Gratuity_sub) Anyway, the question isn’t whether this is accepted practice or who accepts it more, the question is **does Bob still owe the bill** , and that answer is… proved by lawyers, ethicists, and quantum mechanical analogies alike… **yes** , he still owes the money. Maybe Bob needs to review _his_ cash-handling procedures. Just sayin’. ---
**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, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/178 "2020-01-15T16:57:25Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Anyway, the question isn’t whether this is accepted practice or who accepts it more, the question is **does Bob still owe the bill** , and that answer is… proved by lawyers, ethicists, and quantum mechanical analogies alike… **yes** , he still owes the money. The argument is that Bob doesn’t owe the bill because it is accepted practice to leave cash on tables - or to pay in cash and walk away without a receipt. You didn’t refute that and neither did I. It has only been rejected outright. Why not agree to disagree? ~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, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/179 "2020-01-15T17:26:10Z")
The restaurant did not receive their money. Doesn’t matter how you slice the accepted practice, this “accepted practice” resulted in the restaurant not getting the money in which it was owed and it resulted in Bob not paying the bill because Bob paid the table, he didn’t pay an authorized agent of the restaurant. ---
**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, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132/180 "2020-01-15T17:32:32Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > The restaurant did not receive their money. Doesn’t matter how you slice the accepted practice, this “accepted practice” resulted in the restaurant not getting the money in which it was owed. Then it’s a disagreement over when the obligation to pay is satisfied: you say when the restaurant has their money, I say when the patron leaves money on the table. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-restaurant-tab-conundrum/846132.md?page=10)