I didn’t even know there was an official comment, not being a lawyer or even familiar with the UCC before yesterday. So you’ve convinced me that section of law is inapplicable.
~Max
Bob’s obligation is to tender payment to an authorized agent of the restaurant. The obligation remains on his shoulders until he has given the money to a person authorized to receive payment. You can come up with an endless series of variations on the facts, but in none of them does the burden switch back and forth.
Oh look, the goalpost moved again.
Either dropping the money on the table while observed by an employee of the restaurant is sufficient to discharge his obligations, or it’s not. Let me know when you’ve decided which one it is.
That’s not the question asked by the OP, so who exactly is moving goalposts?
This is understandable. Generally speaking, the official comments are available to someone who works for an entity–say a law firm, the legal department of a business or government agency, a law school, etc.–that subscribes to access to the U.C.C. through some legal information service. The majority of such people are lawyers or work for someone who is a lawyer or do work related to law somehow, and have to engage in legal research.
Those people would also not end their research with an article that quoted from a legal text with no citation or anything. Despite not being a lawyer, you did actually come up with the citation to the actual provision of the U.C.C. in question. That’s the least that a lawyer relying on this provision would have done.
Lawyers are generally introduced to the U.C.C. in law school, where they are made aware of extensive annotations and commentary. It’s understandable that a non-lawyer wouldn’t know this. A lawyer, wanting to know how to interpret a U.C.C. provision, would likely think of the official comments pretty quickly and try to read them and refer to them. That’s the least an actual lawyer would do before making the argument that a provision of the U.C.C. supported es position. A court would be unhappy to be faced with a lawyer who had failed to do at least that much.
You are. Among others.
In order to answer the question posed by OP in any comprehensible and consistent way, one needs to figure out what the rules are for when Bob is, and when Bob is not, culpable for the costs if his previous payment has vanished. This means figuring out the rules, even in situations that vary from the precise ones mentioned in the OP.
The “he should have to pay again even if everybody KNOWS he already paid” crowd has been very inconsistent in determining where the line is, probably because being consistent vaults them headfirst into absurd situations. For example, if money left on the table remains Bob’s money even after he leaves, then every waitperson who has picked up a tip up off of a table has been committing petty theft.
In UltraVires’s defense, he cited the specific provision in the same post that he linked to the article, and he quoted the entire section forty minutes later.
~Max
Just quoting myself to revisit and expand on this - consider the difference between leaving a few dollars behind on the table, and leaving a wallet containing a few dollars behind on the table. All of us would agree that the wallet and its contents remain Bob’s property even after he leaves, and the waitress doesn’t have the right to go through the wallet and take all the cash inside as a tip. However, most of us would say that without the wallet, she can take the money as a tip, without chasing Bob down and getting his permission.
This proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the handling of bare money placed on the table in a restaurant is a recognized special case, specifically regarding when ownership of it transfers to the employees of the restaurant.
That’s not how the law works. It doesn’t consider every possible variation of facts and draw the lines between all of them. You can always keep adding facts to a scenario until you reach an ambiguity. That’s why courts have to interpret laws and apply them to facts.
Laws and rules are necessarily at some level of abstraction. In the vast majority of cases, there will be no question what the correct answer is, but in some percentage of cases, arguments can be made on one side or the other. That’s why there are courts.
I don’t know what would be the line in every possible variation. I do know that in the OP’s scenario, Bob has put money on the table and left, his server doesn’t see him do this and doesn’t see the theft. In the OP’s scenario, Bob has not tendered payment to an authorized agent of the restaurant. Giving that answer doesn’t oblige me to come up with answers to an infinite series of variations.
Two things:
Firstly, I am not even slightly convinced that your interpretation of the law is correct. My layman’s read of that plurally quoted section of the law (with its means and manner) does not indicate to me that leaving money on the table is not a payment done in a manner current in the ordinary course of business at such restaurants. And as best as I can recall nobody’s cited case law showing that I’m wrong.
And, much, much more importantly:
This thread is explicitly not limited to what the law says. And, while I generally think that one should pay attention to the law (particularly if one doesn’t want to get arrested), the law is not the be-all and end-all of the truth. There are bad laws, there are vague laws, there are laws that have been interpreted in a way different from their writers intended, and there are laws that are nonsensical from the standpoint of common social mores.
The way the “make him pay twice” contingent has been arguing, the law is apparently nonsensical from the standpoint of its own mores. When I can demonstrate that the supposed law leads inevitably to absurd conclusions, I take that as proof that either your interpretation of the law is flawed, or that the law itself is. In either case it shouldn’t be taken as the foundation of anybody’s idea of what is actually correct, or who would actually be responsible in a non-insane world.
Going from the original post, with my answers in italics:
[ol][li]Should Bob have to pay if nobody but Bob (and the thief) agrees that Bob left money on the table?[/li]Legally, yes. Morally, yes from the perspective of everybody except Bob and the thief - which includes me. See #2 for Bob’s perspective.
[li]Should Bob have to pay if everybody agrees that Bob left money on the table?[/li]Legally and morally, this is where I think people disagree. If you believe the obligation to pay is discharged when the money is left on the table, as I do, the answer is “no” unless, in context, it was negligent or uncustomary to leave money on the table. If you believe the obligation to pay is discharged only once the restaurant has an opportunity to collect the money, or once the restaurant actually collects the money, then the answer would be “yes”.
[li]Should Bob have to pay if, before leaving the restaurant, he had told the waitress that money is on the table, and the waitress let him go?[/li]If you believe the obligation to pay is only discharged when the money is actually collected by the restaurant, the answer would be “yes”. Otherwise, “no”.
[li]Should Bob have to pay if the waitress was actually the thief?[/li]If the waitress doesn’t admit to being the thief we are put back in scenario #1. If she does admit, we are put back to scenario #2.[/ol]
~Max
You’re entitled to your opinion, but if I’m reading #4 right, you believe that if the waitress steals the money and doesn’t admit it, it’s moral that Bob should have to pay a second time. Putting aside the :smack: of it all, doesn’t this mean that you think that after stealing the money, the waitress has a moral obligation to chase Bob down and force him to pay for (and thus, conceal) her theft?
Well, it is moral from the point of view of someone who doesn’t know the waitress stole the money, who doesn’t know that Bob even put down the money to begin with.
Not necessarily, no. Chasing down a dine and dash is dangerous, as mentioned early on in the thread. The moral calculation there is much more involved.
~Max
Is it?
Can we draw a distinction between those who believe Bob when he protests, and those who don’t? I assumed your argument for Bob automatically being held morally accountable in #1 was because you had some kind of beef with him for not notifying the waitress properly, not because he was presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Morals quail not in the face of danger!
Yes, we can draw that distinction. In the post you quoted, I should have written believed or agreed that instead of knew.
Perhaps, but I am not presently disposed to make out a tree of how different moral belief systems handle an act which may cause bodily harm or injury, and how they weigh that against a moral obligation to collect payment, if that even exists.
~Max
I have not applied that provision of the U.C.C. because it is irrelevant to this circumstance. I’m not going to address any interpretation of UCC 2-511 because it simply doesn’t apply to this theoretical. So I have nothing to say about “means and manner” other than it is irrelevant.
[/quote]
And it’s similarly futile to keep telling me what The OP is asking for. The OP welcomes legal analysis and asks for opinions. I have done both.
My opinion, of it’s not clear, is the same as my legal analysis—
Throwing down money and leaving is a convenience to you. If you choose to do it, you bear the risk if it disappears before the server gets it. If you want to be certain to avoid that risk, you will not leave until you have seen the server collect the payment.
That in my opinion is both legally and morally just. If you want to make sure you are credited for payment l, you will not leave your money unattended. It is absolutely just and fair that you bear this burden.
The fact that this happens commonly shows only that it is convenient and the risk of problems is ordinarily small.
Don’t you mean until you have a receipt?
~Max
Ummm, the commonly accepted collective noun for multiple intergalactic space yaks is “plurality”; thus, “a plurality of intergalactic space yaks” is the correct form.
But don’t beat yourself up about it. You tried. And it was a good try. 
“Please wait to be seated”, “Please seat yourself” (usually on opposite sides of the same sign), “Please pay server”, “Please pay cashier”, “No checks accepted”, to name a few.
That said, I haven’t seen “- - - people who run - - - - place are not responsible for lost articles”* in a restaurant.
*(did you see what I did there? I constructed the sentence such that the articles were missing. HA! I slay me.)
Are you going to keep repeating this or are you going to provide cites. I provided cites in clear language, but you just reject them out of hand.
Where is your cite that money must be pressed against human flesh in order for a payment to have been made?