The restaurant tab conundrum.

In My Humble Opinion
201

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

202

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.

203

From the June 8th, 1998 edition of the NY Times*:

*Again, no.

204

[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

205

Cite on these laws. Because I haven’t seen them.

206

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.

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.

207

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.

208

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.

209

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.

210

In my state, UCC 2-511 as cited earlier becomes Fl. stat. 672.511. 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

211

That has not happened, not in this thread. The reference to the U.C.C. does not say what you have written above.

212

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.

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.

213

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.)

214

You do realize what an empty threat that is right?

215

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.

216

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.

217

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.

218

Ummm…

219

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

220

IMHO, not GD. Grrr! was explicitly interested people’s opinions, legalese notwithstanding.

~Max