I disagree that Bob is required to pay an authorized agent of the restaurant because I think it is customary to leave money on the table.
~Max
Let’s try some more cites:
See that? In any manner current in the ordinary course of business. UCC 2-511 (2). It does matter “how you slice the accepted practice.” If you want to argue that these are not goods but services, I can provide common law case cites as well.
Nothing says that you must “pay an authorized agent.” If it is common in the widget selling business to pay your bill by folding money into paper airplanes and throwing it at the front door of the business, then that is payment for a widget.
And in their examples they explicitly give other forms of currency, not alternative processes of exchanging same. Try again.
Custom is not the law. It isn’t even necessarily the right or moral answer.
You want the debt settled, pay the restaurant, not the table. Just ask that poor cat what happens in undecided quantum states. 
Please read it. Means or manner. The examples were for the means. The manner means manner…the way of paying.
Here’s the actual text:
That’s very simple. Absent any term in the contract, a buyer can make payment by any means (credit card, check, cash) or in any manner (mail, Paypal, leaving money on the table) so long as that means and that manner are “current in the ordinary course of business.”
However, even if a credit card is in the ordinary course of business, the seller can nonetheless demand cash, provided he gives you reasonable time to go get cash (because in the ordinary course he would take a credit card).
I don’t know why you insist on arguing this. Do you have any cites for your repeated bald assertion that money must be pressed into the flesh of another person?
So where’s the evidence that Bob did any of this?
Here’s more:
Underlining mine. The usage of trade is relevant in ascertaining the meaning of the parties’ agreement.
Importantly: A usage of trade applicable in the place in which part of the performance under the agreement is to occur may be so utilized as to that part of the performance.
The part of the performance of Bob is to pay for his meal. He may so utilize that usage of trade as to paying for his meal.
Post #1. The Rules of the Thread.
Where is the evidence that Bob did not do any of this? If you are suing Bob for a breach of the contract, where is your evidence?
You can’t prove a negative. So let’s just put that argument to rest shall we?
I voted that the Restaurant was responsible. Bob did nothing wrong, the waitress did nothing wrong. Shit like this happening is the cost of doing business. If this starts being a regular problem the the restaurant needs to implement a policy where people pay at the register before leaving.
Now as to what I would do if I were Bob, I would probably protest that I had paid, go back to the table with the waitress and point out where I’d placed it. If they continued to say I needed to pay I’d grudgingly cough up the money but just because I’m conflict adverse, and may just pay the straight $15.00 sans tip depending on whether the waitress was apologetic or accusatory.
Bob did nothing wrong, but he took a risk, and he should bear the burden of that risk.
This is pretty much a restatement of what I’ve been saying. That’s exactly what Bob is doing. He’s taking a risk, perhaps a small risk, but the burden of the liability of that risk is on Bob.
I’ll grant that customary practices do not necessarily absolve one of legal or even moral burdens. I know, that’s not quite what you said, but that’s as far as I’m going to concede right now. My humble opinion is that the customary practice of leaving money on restaurant tables absolves a restaurant patron of his or her legal and moral obligation to pay the restaurant, notwithstanding the possibility that the money may be stolen before the restaurateur collects it.
We can agree to disagree on that, or we can keep discussing it.
~Max
Every time I’ve left the bill and money on the table, I’ve always gotten the waitress’s attention first so she can see me doing it.
Other times as she’s first handing me the bill, I say I’ll pay it now, even if I’m still finishing up my breakfast.
If anything, I feel awkward leaving it on the table (even though the waitress has seen me) because I worry another diner will think I took off without paying. Or if I pay the bill while I’m still eating, they will think that also.
Not directed at me but I’ll take a shot at it.
One could easily negate that possibility by simply paying in person. Do you feel it’s morally responsible to place that burden on the restaurateur when it could be easily avoided?
Don’t know about other provinces, but in BC, it is against the law for employers to make servers pay for dine and dash and similar cases. Which is not to say all employers know or obey the law; many do not.
I think you could convince me on this with regard to the original hypothetical, depending on the restaurant. There are plenty of restaurants where leaving money out on the table is just plain dumb. The room could be crowded and with lots of people moving about, no visibility from the staff (who are standing) to your table, in the “bad” part of town, etc. Especially if there is a cashier station with a pooled tip jar, in that case it’s totally on Bob.
But on the other hand I have a local diner where they only take cash, and they don’t have a cashier station (the waitresses bring you change). After the 4-5:00 early dinner rush the place is almost empty, the waitresses have a clear line of sight to my table and every person who might come within five feet of it. If she’s on the phone behind the bar and I have somewhere to be, I think I satisfy my obligation by leaving the money+tip on the table and saying goodnight on the way out. If someone snatches my $20, that’s on the waitress and therefore the restaurant, not me.
Or let’s say it’s one of my favorite Dimsum places. They are never crowded. They take cards and cash. This is a place where the custom does not hold true, because the restaurant does not let you leave money on the table and walk away. The restaurant is one big room with tables spaced wide apart, and a bar/host station near the entrance. The bill is always on your table because that’s how Dimsum works. Somebody coming close enough to another table to steal would be very conspicuous, as would be trying to leave with the bill and dishes still on your table. If you try and walk out before the server has cleared your bill, the host/barkeep by the door will stop you dead in your tracks. I’ve seen this happen once for a mixed couple that came in. They tried to leave cash on the table, the host semi-politely stopped them and asked them to wait while they process the (cash) payment.
~Max
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.
Hmm. I looked back over the thread and I think I’ve confused your hypothetical with another which, unfortunately, used the same names.
In your original hypothetical, post #1, no it is not. That’s on Bob, unless he has some sort of relationship with the restaurant such that they know Bob wouldn’t lie about paying. If everybody agrees that Bob left money and a thief intercepted the money, and if in context leaving money on the table isn’t negligence (is customary), it’s on the restaurant.
In steronz’s hypotheticals, posts #25 and #31, yes it is. That’s on the waitress or the restaurant.
Sorry about the confusion, all.
~Max