The restaurant tab conundrum.

[Acsenray]

@UltraVires

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?

Your citation of the U.C.C. does not say what you seem to be claiming it says. Can you find a court ruling that interprets that section in this way?

Furthermore, you are not citing to the U.C.C. You’re citing to an article in the nature of an advice column, which itself does not give a citation.

And let’s take a look at that passage in that article (not a law, mind you, an advice column that merely refers to the U.C.C.)

As to the form of payment, the UCC allows for payment “by any means or in any manner current in the ordinary course of business,” unless the seller demands payment in cash. Depending on the specific circumstances, “any means” could mean bank checks, credit cards, or other methods of payment.

Even if we assume that this author is correctly citing to and interpreting the U.C.C., E is clearly not talking about whether you can leave money on a table. By “form” and “method” and “means,” it’s clear E’s talking about the type of monetary instrument you are offering as tender for payment–checks, credit cards, cash, etc.

Seriously, would you dare to present this argument to a judge?

[Max_S]

@Acsenray

Even if we assume that this author is correctly citing to and interpreting the U.C.C., E is clearly not talking about whether you can leave money on a table. By “form” and “method” and “means,” it’s clear E’s talking about the type of monetary instrument you are offering as tender for payment–checks, credit cards, cash, etc.

I think JohnT had it right when he said the key word here is “manner”.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Acsenray

Furthermore, you are not citing to the U.C.C. You’re citing to an article in the nature of an advice column, which itself does not give a citation.

It’s legit. I also cited my state law in post #210, which is identical, word for word.

~Max

[begbert2]

Looking at this thread, I’m now picturing Bob handing money to the cashier, who happens to be the owner of the restaurant, who makes and holds eye contact while folding the bill in half and sliding it into his chest pocket.

“Bob”, he then says, “Your money was stolen before it was officially accepted by my business. I didn’t see who did it because I was looking at you. You have to pay again.”

[Acsenray]

@Max_S

I think JohnT had it right when he said the key word here is “manner”.

~Max

There is no reason to believe that “manner” means anything different than “means” in this case, particularly given that the passage speaks only of types of monetary instruments. No other kinds of “manner” are suggested. Legal English commonly speaks in synonymous doublets.

Again, I invite citations to a court ruling suggesting that this interpretation is legitimate.

[Acsenray]

@Max_S

I think JohnT had it right when he said the key word here is “manner”.

~Max

There is no reason to believe that “manner” means anything different than “means” in this case, particularly given that the passage speaks only of types of monetary instruments. No other kinds of “manner” are suggested. Legal English commonly speaks in synonymous doublets.

i would find useful a citation of the section of the UCC being quoted.

Again, I invite citations to a court ruling suggesting that this interpretation is legitimate.

[UltraVires]

@Acsenray

There is no reason to believe that “manner” means anything different than “means” in this case, particularly given that the passage speaks only of types of monetary instruments. No other kinds of “manner” are suggested. Legal English commonly speaks in synonymous doublets.

Again, I invite citations to a court ruling suggesting that this interpretation is legitimate.

You don’t believe that “means” and “manner” are two different words that mean two different things? I’ve given plenty of cites. You’ve given opinion. It’s your turn.

[Acsenray]

You cited to an article that doesn’t support your position without unsupported additional speculation. And you still haven’t cited to the actual section of the U.C.C. implicated. So you haven’t done any actual legal research to be countered.

[Balthisar]

The restaurant controls the table, right? It’s on their premises? They exert sovereignty over that table in their possession, on their property?

Seems to me that leaving the money on the table is paying the restaurant. The restaurant is negligent if they allow some thief to swipe the money.

[Calavera]

The US controls the street around the table, right? They exert sovereignty over that street in their possession, in their town?

Seems to me that leaving the money on the street is paying my taxes. The US is negligent if they allow some thief to swipe the money.

[Max_S]

@Calavera

Seems to me that leaving the money on the street is paying my taxes.

This is where your analogy fails, since I think leaving money on a table is a valid and customary way to pay restaurants, but leaving money on a street is not a valid or customary way to pay taxes.

~Max

[Max_S]

@begbert2

Looking at this thread, I’m now picturing Bob handing money to the cashier, who happens to be the owner of the restaurant, who makes and holds eye contact while folding the bill in half and sliding it into his chest pocket.

“Bob”, he then says, “Your money was stolen before it was officially accepted by my business. I didn’t see who did it because I was looking at you. You have to pay again.”

In this scenario the thief is known so the thief can be held responsible for the tab.

~Max

[begbert2]

@Max_S

In this scenario the thief is known so the thief can be held responsible for the tab.

~Max

According to Bob the thief is known. Why should the restaurant owner take his word?

I’m aware I’m being silly, but seriously, the argument being floated seems to be that if the transference of money fails for any reason, at any point, that Bob is on the hook for the payment all over again. Leaving money on the table apparently isn’t considered payment, against all evidence. So what is considered payment? Handing it to a server, who promptly pockets it and lies about it? (This would be indistinguishable from the OP’s scenario to the owner.) Placing it on the counter next to the register, from whence it’s promptly stolen? Placing it in the hand of the cashier - from which it’s promptly stolen before being placed in the register?

Hell, at this point I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that if you’re at a 7-11 buying a soda, and you pay, but just as you’re about to leave the place is robbed and the register cleaned out - that the cashier can suddenly turn to you and demand that you pay again because he doesn’t have your money!

[Max_S]

@Acsenray

There is no reason to believe that “manner” means anything different than “means” in this case, particularly given that the passage speaks only of types of monetary instruments. No other kinds of “manner” are suggested. Legal English commonly speaks in synonymous doublets.

First, if you claim to recognize a synonymous doublet the burden is on you to show that the phrase is a doublet. I have heard of “manner and form” or “ways and means”, but never “by any means or in any manner”. I cannot prove a negative; I cannot prove the absence of a synonymous doublet; you must prove the presence of one.

Second, if the words “means” and “manner” are synonyms or part of a phrase, it is most likely that the phrase as a whole means “in any way”. You appear to claim that both refer to the “financial resources” sense of “means”, but such a definition does not appear in any dictionary I could find.

Moving from my own knowledge to the internet, a general search for “by any means or in any manner” shows that the phrase is in fact used in multiple laws. Let’s look at the top results (bear in mind that I am in Florida and my search reflects that):

[ul][li]Fla. Stat. 836.11(1):[/li]“It shall It shall be unlawful to print, publish, distribute or cause to be printed, published or distributed by any means, or in any manner whatsoever, any publication, handbill, dodger, circular, booklet, pamphlet, leaflet, card, sticker, periodical, literature, paper or other printed material which tends to expose any individual or any religious group to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy unless the following is clearly printed or written thereon:[…]”
[li]Uniform Commercial Code § 2-511(2):[/li]“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.”
[li]38 Fed. Reg. 22023 (August 15, 1973):[/li]“No person shall at any time, by any means, or in any manner, transport any migratory game bird[…]”
“No person shall at any time, by any means, or in any manner, export or cause to be exported any migratory game bird[…]”
“No person shall at any time, by any means or in any manner, take, possess, transport, or export any migratory bird[…]”
“No person shall at any time, by any means or in any manner, import, possess, or transport, any migratory bird[…]”
[li]50 CFR 20 which codifies the above federal regulations. Shows up in appendixes to books on Google, here and here.[/li][li]From 1922 periodicals accessible through Google Books, two reproductions of the same 1922 bill (which is similar to the 1939 Federal Seed Act):[/li]“[…]any seed which by any means or in any manner, is represented or indicated as conforming to the standards[…]”
“to ship or deliver for shipment, or transport, in commerce seed represented or indicated by any means or in any manner as conforming to the standards[…]”
“That any seed represented or indicated by any means or in any manner as conforming to the standards[…]”
“[…]that any seed is represented or indicated by any means or in any manner as conforming to the standards[…]”
“[…]who shall represent or indicate by any means or in any manner that any seed conforms to the standards[…]”
[li]An Act to reduce into One Act and to amend the Excise Regulations relating to the distilling, rectifying, and dealing in Spirits 1860, c. 114. Available at https://books.google.com/books?id=BqFUAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA856&lpg=PA856&dq=%22by+any+means+or+in+any+manner%22&source=bl&ots=8Z38YFcXpF&sig=ACfU3U2-nmh1oT4O2cGABU3LIqe3nFNGZQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTrtnU6YjnAhWuwVkKHRYZD_oQ6AEwCHoECAcQAQ (Accessed: 16 January 2020):[/li]XXIX: “[…]if the Officer shall by any Means or in any Manner whatever be prevented from ascertaining the Quantity and Gravity[…]”
[li]K.S.A. 32-1008(b) (2018): “It is unlawful to take, buy, sell or offer to sell by any means or in any manner any migratory bird[…]”[/ul][/li]I believe all of the above examples support my interpretation, which is that the phrase “by any means or in any manner” means “in any way”. I am now even less convinced that Fla. Stat. 672.511, which is identical to UCC 2-511, somehow uses the same phrase as a synonymous doublet meaning “with any financial resource”.

~Max

[Max_S]

Maybe the issue is over something more simple. In the sentence,
“Tender of payment is sufficient when made by any means or in any manner current in the ordinary course of business[…]”
the phrase “by any means or in any manner” is a prepositional phrase that modifies the verb “made”. It is not any means or any manner of tender of payment, it is any means or any manner of making that tender of payment.

~Max

[Acsenray]

Aha, now that we have the actual section of the UCC involved, we can do actual legal research.

The official comment to the U.C.C. 2-511 says this:

The essence of the principle involved in subsection (2) is avoidance of commercial surprise at the time of performance. The section on substituted performance covers the peculiar case in which legal tender is not available to the commercial community.

So, in fact, this section has nothing to do with what surfaces a customer lays his money on. It says that the business can’t surprise the customer at the last minute by insisting on payment in a particular manner (legal tender, i.e., cash) when it would be unfair to expect the customer to be prepared for such a requirement.

Expanding that to mean absolutely any fact surrounding the ways in which a person might try to make payment is absolutely unsupported.

Notice the section itself mentions only types of monetary instruments (legal tender, check). Notice that the original article that UltraVires linked to mentioned only types of monetary instruments. There is no reason to believe that this subsection (2) has to do with anything other than whether a creditor can insist on a method of payment at the last minute that the customer wasn’t prepared for.

Indeed, it would be surprising to anyone familiar with the Uniform Commercial Code that someone would suggest that any provision of the U.C.C. was intended to reach the level of specificity in consumer transactions suggested in this thread. The U.C.C. was written to address multi-state commercial transactions and contracts and wasn’t meant to address what happened with dollar bills traveling from a consumers wallet to hand to register drawer.

[Acsenray]

@begbert2

I’m aware I’m being silly, but seriously, the argument being floated seems to be that if the transference of money fails for any reason, at any point, that Bob is on the hook for the payment all over again.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I haven’t said anything that would amount to such an assertion.

Handing it to a server, who promptly pockets it and lies about it? (This would be indistinguishable from the OP’s scenario to the owner.)

No, it wouldn’t be indistinguishable. The question of whether Bob has successfully tendered payment does not depend on whether someone else might lie about it. As I said, assume Bob can prove that everything he claims is true.

The issue is whether he has tendered payment to an authorized agent. In all of these speculative scenarios, Bob has tendered payment to an authorized agent. The case of leaving money on a table, an act that no authorized agent is aware of, is fundamentally different from all these other scenarios.

[begbert2]

@Acsenray

No, it wouldn’t be indistinguishable. The question of whether Bob has successfully tendered payment does not depend on whether someone else might lie about it. As I said, assume Bob can prove that everything he claims is true.

The issue is whether he has tendered payment to an authorized agent. In all of these speculative scenarios, Bob has tendered payment to an authorized agent. The case of leaving money on a table, an act that no authorized agent is aware of, is fundamentally different from all these other scenarios.

Bolding mine. Are you saying that if Bob’s casual deposit of cash on the table had happened to have been observed by that other waitress on the other side of the restaurant when she glanced away from the table she was cleaning, then it would have been a correctly completed transfer of money and Bob wouldn’t be responsible, but the fact that she glanced the other way imparts responsibility onto him?

[Acsenray]

By the way, Article 2 of the U.C.C., the article covering sales, has famously never been adopted in Louisiana. Any lawyer familiar with the U.C.C. would know this, as Louisiana is mentioned as an outlier in nearly any conversation about Article 2 at conferences, academic settings, professional education, etc.

[Ravenman]

I find the words “means or manner” to be ambiguous enough to not provide a clear answer to this case absent a more specific definition or case law. The phrase could conceivably apply to payments in cash vs. check; mail vs. in-person; payment at time of delivery vs. later; and similar broad concepts… but since leaving money unattended is not a common manner of doing business except in probably a rather small minority of transactions and only at a particular type of eatery (sit down as opposed to carry out).

To say it another way, I’m not clear whether that whole clause applies to common practice at businesses generally (and since leaving cash on a table somewhere isn’t common practice among businesses at-large), or if an uncommon but not unknown practice at only one particular type of establishment qualifies (so it doesn’t matter that nobody buys clothes by leaving a wad of cash somewhere inside a clothing store).