When I was in high school, a girl I know was accused of stealing gas, because she had a credit card and this was the 90s when the vast majority of drivers did not pay at the pump. So the clerk saw her drive up to the pump, pump her gas, and drive away without ever going inside to pay. He chased her down and accused her of theft. I think the police were even called. She didn’t have a receipt because nobody wants to keep their gas receipts, so it took some time to sort it all out. (To this day I still tell the pump to print a receipt, and I just leave it hanging in the breeze, in case someone accuses me of theft.)
My point is the risk is always there. The question isn’t about risk. Sure, there’s a small risk that by paying for your meal the way millions of people have done daily for generations, you might be open to accusations of dine and dash if some third party or corrupt waiter steals your payment. But that doesn’t make it a moral responsibility of Bob’s to pay for his meal a second time. Bob could pay the waiter, and the waiter could pocket it. Bob could pay the owner and the owner still accuses him of theft out of spite. In no case does anybody else’s crime put the moral burden on Bob to pay for his meal a second time.
So back in the day when you could pay for your restaurant tab with a check, leaving a check on the table was fine, but leaving cash wasn’t? Because people still send checks in the mail all the time. Paying by mail is not the issue. Maybe the thief was an idiot and thought he could cash a check made out to the restaurant? Either way, it’s not Bob’s’ fault nor his debt.
It’s my inference of what they should be saying if they were paying the tiniest bit of attention to what is actually occurring in the scenarios under discussion. They are not paying attention to these things because if they did they would be forced to admit that their position is inherently self-contradictory. And saying that my simple post makes no sense to you doesn’t really cast me in a bad light.
Or to put it more directly, until somebody can actually answer the points that cash on the table clearly has special status as a payment method and that cash left on the table is clearly treated as the restaurant’s property once the patrons have left the aforementioned table, they have no argument at all. And by “answer” I mean something other than ignoring it, saying “nuh-uh!”, or citing other people saying “nuh-uh!”.
I mean, sure, “nuh-uh!” is probably good enough for themselves, but it’s not going to convince anybody who has noticed the above manifestly demonstrated facts and doesn’t consider reality irrelevant.
Most people are humans, and humans have a predisposition towards confirmation bias. And, in my personal observation, nobody on the internet is ever, ever willing to concede that they’re wrong while engaging in an argument, at least not during the argument itself. (Yes, I know, you’ve personally seen a unicorn, or are one. Congratulations!) So when a human has entrenched themselves in a position that most certainly seemed sensible at the time, then they will be psychologically inclined to do everything possible to counter or dismiss the other side’s arguments - or, failing that, ignore them.
So, no. The above can be done without bad faith, and, hell, a person could in theory legitimately not understand the arguments being put to them! Of course the effect is the same in the end.
I like your question because it sort of highlights the different ways this debate can be examined.
The patron. They know if they paid or not, and are entirely justified in behaving accordingly. They certainly don’t have any moral reason to pay twice, no matter what anybody else does.
The restaurant. They don’t really know if the person put money down, and have no particular reason to believe them. However no sensible restaurant will ever take the attempt as far as small claims court to attempt to recoup the loss, if the person persists in declaring their innocence - they’ll eat the loss first.
The impartial observer. They will of course draw their conclusions based on what they observe, which is limited. In the example in post #101, the dine-and-dasher is an innocent-looking elderly gentleman who is 100% believable in his protests so of course the observers will believe him and get mad at the waitress for being such a bully.
God mode, which is what the opening post was asking for. God knows that in #101 the dine-and-dasher hasn’t paid and should pay, and they know that in the opening post the patron has already paid and has no moral reason to pay twice, no matter what anybody else does.
Since you ask about case 3, what do you have against that nice old man??
All these things could be said about you. In fact, one could make a stronger argument that you would be more inclined to do these things as you are the one in the minority opinion. And thus, feel a greater need to defend your position.
Laugh all you want, but I’ve gone to court over principle.
A woman walked into my business wanting to purchase a $12 item but she’d forgotten her purse. We knew her, had done business with her before, etc. She argued that she wanted to take the product and then drop the money off at some future time.
Well, I do no billing and she was being obnoxious with my employee, so I said no, she cannot take the item. After I walked away, she huffed, rolled her eyes, and walked out with the item. When I learned what she did I called the cops and the PA State Police responded.
Given her name and address, the cop pulled up her driver’s licenses picture on his car computer and began laughing. He’d arrested her before for bizarre behavior and drug offenses. I insisted on persuing the matter, and promised to testify if needed, so he arrested her.
Long story short, I testified against her, she appeared pro-se, and although she’d cleaned up nice and was polite to the magistrate, she was found guilty. On the way out of court she freaked out and threatened me, leading to the cop manhandling her and telling her to settle down. I missed a day of work but recieved $12 “victim compensation” and she paid a hefty fine. It was worth every penny for the experience alone.
Cash on the table has as much special status as leaving your front door key under the doormat. People do it often, but it is an invitation to theft, and therefore anyone who does it is taking a risk.
Does that satisfy you? Or shall I expect a “nuh-uh!” in response?
Your reasoning is not convincing to me, which is why I asked for a cite. I’m not convinced that if the person simply flakes and doesn’t pick up the dry cleaning that he is legally culpable to the friend for failure to perform. So, let’s see a cite that an uncompensated agent enters into a legal duty to do a favor for a friend in this scenario.
ETA: to be clear, if the friend says, I’ll give you $10 to go pick up my dry cleaning, and the person agrees but then fails to do so, I agree that is a breach. But if there’s no compensation offered for the person, I’m not convinced he takes on a legal duty to do a favor by acting as a special agent for a contract between the friend and the dry cleaner that he has no interest in.
Leaving your own key under your own front doormat is not a tender of payment, not contractual or not anything. I fail to see how it has a single thing to do with what we are discussing. You are just question begging here.
How about this? If I return a library book and leave in it the night depository, and the depository is stolen, do I owe the library for the book?
I assume (and if I’m wrong, lets stop there) you would say “no” because the library explicitly placed the depository there, but a sticker on it that said “Book Return” and therefore they assumed the risk by doing that.
And what I have argued throughout this thread is that one doesn’t need to take explicit and written action to accomplish this. An allowance through usage of trade serves to ratify a lot of conduct that we do all of the time.
If a bartender asks if you want a drink, is it free because he didn’t specify that there was a charge? Can you ask him to mail a bill to your house? Can you pay in beaver pelts? No? Why? Because usage of trade.
Which the bar thing comes from an old joke that I just have to share.
A man walks into a bar and the bartender asks if he would like a drink. The guy says “yes” a whiskey. The bartender pours it, gives it to the man, and says “That’ll be $6.”
The guys says that he is not paying. At this point his attorney who is sitting a few stools down chimes in and says that the man is right. That as the offer was not made conditional on payment, it was an offer of a gift and therefore no compensation is due.
The bartender angrily tells the man to go ahead and finish his drink and then get out; he never wants to see him again. The bartender goes into the back and checks the inventory for a little while and comes back out and sees the man sitting there. He says, “I thought I told you to get the hell out of here!”
The man says, “What are you talking about? I’ve never been here in my life!”
The bartender says, “Well, you must have a double then.”
The man says (wait for it) “Thanks, I’ll take one and give my attorney one too.”
I most definitely am human, most definitely desire not to lose arguments, and most definitely prefer to back quietly away from a post refuting me than to man up and eat crow. So if you see me vanish from a thread it’s definitely possible that I saw an argument I couldn’t defeat and fled.
(You’ll notice I haven’t fled this thread.)
But yes, what I wrote does apply to me - so you too can’t assume I’m arguing dishonestly. (You do realize that that paragraph was anti-slanderous, right?)
That “minority opinion” business is inapplicable, though, because I have decades of practice knowing that I’m right and the majority of people are wrong - I’m an atheist! Plus I don’t see any evidence whatsoever that the majority of humans think that paying on the table isn’t payment. Literally no evidence at all. (This thread’s poll is too small a sample size to count as evidence.) So yeah - I’m actually arguing the majority opinion, and you lot have your backs to the fences. So ha! Ha, I say!
Well, let’s look at what you wrote. You made a claim that leaving keys under the doormat is analogous to cash on the table, and attempted to bolster your analogy with the facts that people do it often and that both are “invitations to theft”.
However, neither of those have anything at all to do with how we know that cash on the table has special status. What demonstrates that cash on the table has special status is that restaurateurs treat cash on the table in a way differently from leaving cash in the bathroom or leaving a wallet on the table. There is nothing about keys under mats that has a comparable distinction, which shows that your analogy misses the single important point that would make it a relevant analogy. Whether this happened because you don’t understand the arguments in play, or because you’re just arguing hastily or dishonestly, I cannot know.
But I can know that your analogy in inapplicable to the current discussion, so no, it doesn’t satisfy me.
Also, putting aside the absurdity that one restauranteur’s misconceptions can override convention and possibly law, this also is (yet again) ignoring the significant detail that if that restaurateur seeks compensation from Bob because he considers the money left on the table to still have been Bob’s, then he must also believe himself a felon if he ever picks up money that was left on a table. That, or he decides he can just take whatever he wants and not have it considered theft.
I’m suddenly reminded of a scene in Mickey’s Once Upon a Christmas, where Pete grabs money out of Mickey’s hand and declares it’s his, because he’s decided that Mickey owes him money.
In your opinion, can a restaurateur swipe your wallet and take the money out of it he feels is due? Can a waitress do that if she feels she deserves a bigger tip than you gave? That money is just sitting in your wallet, just like it’s just sitting on the table. Are the two locations equivalent? If not, what’s the difference between them?
