You need a cite for common sense?
How is that “common sense” ? I make payments all of the time where there is no human interaction.
I was thinking about this thread last night. We had a high school reunion recently and my buddy paid for my tickets because he saw the lady in charge. So I went over to his house and paid him back. I laid the money on his kitchen counter, we talked for a while over a couple of beers and I went home.
It would seem that under your argument, I never really paid him until he went to the counter and physically picked up the money. If he left it there and went to bed, but his house was burgled that night, he could argue that I still owed him the money, again, unless he perhaps placed his hand on it. It’s really an absurd argument.
That’s a rather poor analogy I don’t feel inclined to entertain.
The bottom line is, if you leave an establishment, sans receipt, you’re taking a risk however small that may be.
That, to me, is common sense. No need to go down the rabbit hole.
But it seems that we are back into the evidentiary issue again. You would admit that legally the receipt is irrelevant, no? If Bob walked to the counter, handed $20 to the staff member, they smiled to each other, “Thank you and have a wonderful day!” but Bob didn’t get a receipt, you would agree that he paid, would you not? The receipt is only evidence to protect Bob so that he has proof that he paid.
It seems that those on the restaurant’s side are having sort of a moral problem. In other words, posters are thinking that if Bob can get away with not paying (again) then it will be easy for people to skip out on checks. When you are done with your meal, get up and leave, and if they catch you, simply claim that you left the money on the table and that a thief must have stolen it.
But any informal transaction has this potential on both sides of the equation. Bob could take steps to protect himself by getting a receipt, but the restaurant could take steps as well, such as banning placing money on the table as a method of payment. I don’t know why Bob has to be the one bearing all of the risk when the restaurant could take additional steps, and the restaurant is the sophisticated party, who is in the business of doing this many times each day.
I have never once in over 40 years gotten a receipt for a cash payment in a sit-down restaurant, except for the check, which you get before you pay. They just bring my change.
How is it a poor analogy, out of curiosity? To me it seems to very closely align with the scenario where everybody knows you paid, but the money is stolen by a third party before the transaction is “completed” via the magic of paper contacting flesh.
That’s odd, because I have never once NOT gotten a receipt from a sit down restaurant when paying cash. It usually comes back on a little tray along with the change.
Maybe it’s a regional thing?
I’m not arguing a scenario where everybody knows Bob paid. The scenario I’m arguing only Bob knows he paid.
You’re arguing that Bob is only safe if he gets a receipt. That’s not an “if he was seen by that other waitress on the other side of the room he’s okay” type of argument. And, of course, the OP is quite clear that Bob’s guilt is not established or, really, relevant - it’s a question of whether he has the responsibility to pay regardless of whether or not he convinces the owner he put cash on the table. It’s pretty explicitly a question of when the ownership of them money transfers from Bob to the restaurant - whoever owns the money at the time of its disappearance is the one responsible for replacing it or eating the loss.
Actually the OP very clearly postulates a situation where nobody except Bob and the thief know the truth, (well, Bob may be suspicious of the waitress too, so only the thief knows the truth for sure and he aint talking.)
Grrr! has been very consistent on that, it’s only you and UV that are assuming anyone else knows, steronz created some hypos explicitly as alternate scenarios, but as far as the OP goes the truth is NOT known to the restaurant staff.
I’ve never been given a receipt when paying for a meal with cash. I have been given the original check though.
I asked for a receipt today and my cashier/waiter gave me an is-something-wrong face, probably because nobody asks for cash receipts. He then reached down to the wastebasket and pulled out the original check (bill). I thought about saying “for science!”, then it dawned on me that I could have simply asked him what he would do if a customer wanted a cash receipt. Instead I made this old man bend down and sift through a wastebasket to satisfy my fleeting curiosity. Well, he didn’t quite sift since the paper was on top.
Rather than explain the truth I decided to tip the man an extra two dollars on the spot. It is Friday after all.
~Max
You know, when I started this thread, I had no idea it would fall so far down the rabbit hole. It seems like a rather straight forward question to me.
Arguing all these ridiculous analogies seems a little absurd to me. Especially snarky ones wherein one “magically presses cash into flesh” . I’m so done entertaining these analogies and frankly, I’m sorry I engaged them in the first place.
I think after 6 pages, we’re all cemented in our positions and have no intention of changing our opinions on the matter.
Nothing wrong with that, we don’t have to agree on everything. 
Okay, this is really blowing my mind. I always get the receipt. Is it a regional thing? I’m almost inclined to start another poll. Lol
Right, exactly like I said. The OP presents a scenario where Bob’s guilt is not established or even relevant.
I mean, look at what we’re presented with: Bob put money on the table. The waitress thinks he didn’t put money on the table. And at that point the scenario ends and we’re asked to make the determination - Bob’s arguments in his defense, the waitresses counterarguments, and the manager’s weigh-in are not presented as part of the scenario.
This means that, at its heart, the question asks whether dropping money on the table is, alone, enough to discharge the debt. That must be the question, because the only other question is “If the restaurant adamantly insists that this was a dine and dash, can they try to force Bob to pay?” and that’s frankly a boring question: of course they can, to the degree they can try to force any dine and dasher to pay. That’s a given.
No, the only interesting way to interpret the OP is as asking whether, by dropping the money on the table and having it snatched up he still has to repay, even if he was observed dropping the money. Because, again, if the question is “can dine and dashers be prosecuted”, the answer is “duh”.
Yep, it’s not. But the discussion is only interesting if that fact doesn’t matter and the answer doesn’t change even if he was observed.
I mean, the check is usually printed on thermal paper. It looks exactly like a receipt, except it doesn’t say anywhere that I paid.
On your receipts, does it actually say you paid? If you’re taking the paper home for accounting purposes the check will do just fine, that’s why I ask. The only reason to need an actual receipt is to keep as evidence of payment.
~Max
Yes, it says how much I paid and how much change was rendered.
That said, I rarely pay with cash anymore. So maybe there’s been a paradigm shift from my cash using days.
It has been quite seriously argued in this thread, repeatedly, that unless you physically and directly hand the cash to an “authorized agent” then the bill hasn’t been paid until you do so. To such people the table isn’t such an agent, and thus money on the table doesn’t belong to the restaurant - only when that money is physically taken by an “authorized agent” has the payment been tendered. These arguments are what are being argued against with that type of snarky comment, and the comments are snarky because, frankly, it’s a damned stupid argument which gets stupider and stupider the closer you look at it.
I’m not saying you’ve made this argument, by the way. But it has been made, and thus people can respond to it.
As for the other “ridiculous” analogies, most of them are direct and valid analogies of the situation in question. They come of as ridiculous because they are highlighting how ridiculous it is to think that if the dude puts cash on the restaurant’s table and leaves, and people believe he put cash on the restaurant’s table and left, he remains obligated to replace it if it gets stolen.
Look, I don’t think I’ve used any demeaning language in making my posts. After reading the word “stupid” so many times, I’m going decline to respond to arguments that use that kind of language.
So, dead horses and all that, but I did go outside the confines of the SDMB to ask (gasp!) actual restaurant owners what they thought of the practice of leaving money on the table (giving them this example), and here’s what they said (relevant comments only):
My post: “Quick question for the experts: If Bob leaves payment at the table, walks out, and a thief steals the money without anyone (including customers & restaurant) knowing that Bob paid or that the payment was stolen… … Bob still owes the restaurant, right?”
First Response:
“Yes, otherwise, in most cases, the server is on the hook for it. It’s every guest responsibility to hand the payment to the server or pay the cashier, when applicable. I good manager will keep a record of frequency of occurrence for every server.”
Another respondent said:
“There are other policies that come into play, depending on the style of restaurant service, e.g., casual or full service. Here, the assumption is full service, since the monies were left on the table. In some restaurant, there is CCTV and if this is the case, there could be evidence to show this incident happening. If so, it can be absorbed into the cost of running a business. It is not an eat and dash. However, if “Bob” walks out, and cannot be located, some restaurants will take the shortage from the server who was in that station, in this case, if the employer chooses to take the shortage out of the servers tips, if this results in the server making less that minimum wage, even with the tips made for the day, this could be in breach of minimum wage laws, and therefore the employer would have air up for the shortage. On the other hand, according to the Wage and Hour Division of the Labor department, the tips are the property of the employee, therefore the employer can not legally require the employee to make up the difference of that shortage, and therefore the employer would need to absorb it. Still it’s an interesting question, given the lack of additional information!!!”
(This was kind of all over the place, so I clarified):
“Thank you. In this example, nobody sees Bob pay, nobody sees a thief. No CCTV, nothing. So, the question is: faced with the knowledge that the restaurant did not get paid because he did not pay the waitress/cashier/VISA kiosk/whatever directly, does Bob still owe payment?”
(Response):
“in reality - best practices should be followed - Absorb the cost and move on! ������������”
I’m going to read the above as him agreeing with the fact that Bob owes payment, but that the restaurant is also at fault for allowing him to leave payment in this manner and, therefore, they should eat the cost… and improve their practice as to not allow to-table payments.
On Twitter, a response from The Restaurant Owners of America, a self-styled “Independent Organization created by an independent restauranteur to discuss problems, learn from those problems and help one another be more successful”:
“Unfortunately this does happen. Which is why the best way to process payments is not at the table. At our restaurants we have a checkout station, it insures customers are getting the correct bill, paying their bill & allows us to communicate with our customers.”
The Asian Restaurant Owner’s Network, “Proudly providing a supportive platform for the future of excellence in UK #AsianCuisine, Celebrating innovation, creativity & passion!", had this to say:
“Not BOB, but the thief does.”
So, the final tally from restaurant owners is:
Bob owes: 2.5
Thief Owes: 1
Restaurant should absorb the cost: .5
To the question of whether it is considered a desirable practice for the customer to leave the payment at the table, unprocessed, the owners came down on the side of “No, this is not a best practice” by a tally of 3-0-1 (the one who didn’t answer that question was the Asian Restaurant Owner’s Network).
In other words, in my short poll, no restaurant owner or consultant agrees with the practice of leaving payment unattended at the table. Or… legalese… standard restaurant Best Practices involve you paying an authorized agent prior to you leaving the restaurant.
Thanks!
Your link just goes to a login page (if not logged in to Linkedin) or an oops! page if you are. I suspect the link only works for you.
As was already pointed out with cites, putting the server on the hook is a violation of FLSA (unless the employer doesn’t claim a tip credit and pays higher than minimumm wage.)
Ahhh, dammit. You’re right - it’s to a members-only group, I forgot about that when I posted. My bad.