Nope, you are doing neither of these things. You are leaving your money in a place where you hope that the right person will collect it. It’s like putting a check in the mail. You are not littering, and you haven’t paid. You have just initiated a process that you hope will result in payment. If that process fails in some way, you have failed to pay. It’s just the most of the time things work out to everyone’s favor.
Yes, you are being slightly inattentive with your money. But they’re not stealing it from you. You have left it with the intent that the server will collect it, but you haven’t actually given it to the server until the server actually gets es hands on it.
Yes, it’s a matter of being irresponsible in a minor way. You’re taking the chance that the money will not get to where it’s going. Most of the time it’s okay, but if something goes wrong, it’s your fault for not making sure the money went into the right hands in front of your eyes.
Nope, this is not a rational conclusion. You’re positing a false set of choices–littering, paying, or stealing. Those aren’t the exclusive options.
You have put the money down in the hopes that it will eventually result in successful payment. But by walking away before you are certain that payment has been made, you bear the burden of the risk that something will interfere with the successful conclusion of the transaction.
So to be clear, you’re explicitly arguing that if you don’t hang around the restaurant peeking in the windows until you’ve seen the server collect your tip, you haven’t actually provided a tip, you’ve just left money around and are responsible for replacing it if somebody else snipes the tip.
I presume you either spend a lot of time with your nose pressed against plate glass or are a blazing hypocrite. Or you pay with credit cards I suppose.
Suffice to say, we all agree that there’s a process taking place by which the money is moving from the client’s hands to the restaurant’s till. However you’re arbitrary declaring that that entire process is entirely and 100% the client’s responsibility to oversee and ensure has taken place responsibly.
I maintain that that’s utterly and completely absurd - at some point in the process the responsibility for managing the money transfers from the client to the restaurant, and there’s a century or more of evidence that most people consider the table to the the restaurant’s territory.
But suffice to say, if you actually hold the belief that leaving money on the table isn’t sufficient diligence in delivering payments and tips, then ask for a receipt. Only when they have given you documentation of the receipt of the money have they actually demonstrated that they accept responsibility for keeping track of that money.
So make sure to ask for a receipt for the tips you leave!
Where did the tip enter into this? You have no legal obligation to give anyone tips. That’s the whole point of tipping. Because there’s no obligation in the first place, no one bears the risk of loss. The tip is just gone.
But yes if you leave a tip and the server doesn’t get it , the upshot is that you have failed to tip the server.
And all this silliness about peeking in windows just shows the desperate lengths required to make it seem you have a valid argument.
No o don’t perk in the windows, but when I pay the bill I don’t leave the table until the server collects the money. It’s at that point, and not earlier, when I have fulfilled my end of the contract.
A receipt may constitute proof of payment, but it is incidental to your fulfilling your obligation to pay. Evidence of a fact isn’t the fact itself.
And again, the tipping thing is irrelevant because there’s no legal obligation to tip.
…and here you are, conceding that you do indeed think that leaving money on the table is a failure to tip. Or at least to the same degree that leaving the regular payment on the table is a failure to pay, which is your entire position.
The silliness comes directly from your position. Not mine, yours.
Good for you - I always make sure to collect receipts for my payments too! Admittedly that’s just because I used receipts in my budgeting, and I pay with cards anyway, but I do indeed collect receipts.
…except for when I go to Sizzler and they stupidly refuse to let me include the tip in the payment charge - if I do so they actually hand me the cash back to leave on table myself, to my extreme annoyance. And when I do, I just walk away (because the server is not coming back while I’m there), and guess what? The tip is paid. If somebody goes around stealing the tips off the tables after I leave, they’re not stealing from me at that point: they’re stealing from the servers. Obviously. And I doubt you could find a server who would disagree.
You can assert otherwise all day, but you’ll be obviously wrong.
True, except false - if the cashier doesn’t hand you a printed receipt, there’s nothing stopping them from pretending to ring up your payment and then pocketing the money once you’re gone. By the position you’re defending, it’s your legal responsibility to prevent this from happening - if your payment is stolen by a rando, a server, or even the cashier it’s your responsibility.
If you don’t get a receipt, it is clearly your legal responsibility to hang around until they close the register and the owner takes possession of the counted money. Well, that or your “it’s your responsibility until the restaurant itself takes possession” position is bunkum.
This thread is explicitly not about the legalities, and if your argument worked with the payments it would work with tips too, since they’re both equivalent in that they’re transfers of money to another person or entity.
They’re not equivalent. The question is who bears the burden of an obligation. You are obliged to pay the bill. Therefore if the bill is not paid someone bears the burden to make good on the contract.
In the case of the tip, it’s a voluntary goft. If you fail to tip, no one bears any obligation because there was no obligation in the first place.
But the issue isn’t really about the obligation; it’s whether the transfer of the money occurred properly. Only if there is a failure to transfer the money properly does the level of obligation to pay rear its head.
At its core, this thread is about where the customer’s responsibility for overseeing the transfer of money ends. If the money has been transferred when it hits the table, the thief robbed the restaurant. If the money is considered to still belong to the customer until it comes into the physical possession of the server (or cashier, or owner, or owner’s bank), then he retains an obligation to pay it again if it disappears into somebody’s pocket before the transfer has been properly completed.
To give credit where it’s due, your position is consistent across the payment and the tip - if the tip disappears before entering the server’s physical possession, then you haven’t given them a tip at all. (In defiance of centuries of societal convention.)
Yes, I might do that because there’s no risk to me if the tip gets stolen. I don’t bear any burden so I’m more willing to take the risk that the server won’t be tipped.
Nope, I’m responsible for nothing because there exists no obligation for me to be responsible for. The server didn’t get tipped, but it’s a voluntary gift so tough breaks.
I’m more cavalier about ensuring that the server is tipped precisely because no one can hold me responsible for it. And because it’s very unlikely that anyone will steal the tip, it works out fine almost all the time.
It’s the same process as paying a bill by sending a check in the mail. Until the agent of the person you owe the debt revives the check, you remain responsible for the debt.
This is just an introduction of extraneous facts. Yes, someone might lie about what happened. You might also mock up a fake receipt. Any number of things can happen with respect to evidence. But that doesn’t change the fact of when your obligation was discharged.
These are two completely different circumstances. Once you have put the money into the hand of an authorized agent, your debt is discharged. You might have to prove you did so, but if you do you’re in the clear. On the other hand, if you toss money on the table and leave the restaurant and someone else steals it then even if you prove your story to be true, you still have an unpaid obligation.
Although I have sometimes left money for the waitress, and never been chased into the parking lot by one who claimed the bill wasn’t paid, I have considered the possibility. It’s an unlikely possibility considering the establishments and the establishments’ clientele where I typically dine.
But it could happen. If it did, I would consider all options, including that I might be getting scammed by a waitress who indeed got paid, but decided to claim otherwise. Regardless, I would probably pay the total bill again, with tip, even though it might be the second time. In the off chance that someone had swiped my payment, I would not like to be thought ill of, and the cost of a double payment would be less than the possible bad will if I made a scene, wrong or right.
Of course, I would file this situation in my memory bank, and use the knowledge of it to decide if I ever would return to the restaurant, or if so, would not leave without payment and acknowledgement of same. Once bitten, twice shy; discretion is the better part of valor, and all that.
As it happens I pay for everything by card, to the point where I don’t carry cash at all anymore, so I don’t really have a dog in this fight: I get a receipt for my payment and my tip, and go home without a care in the world. Except, as noted, at Sizzler, which forces me to tip with cash (and will give me the cash to do so, billing it to my card and showing it on my receipt).
And, of course, once I leave the cash on the table, I have tipped, and walk away without a care in the world. If somebody were to rob the server of their cash before they can tuck it away, that’s sad, but not a failure on my part, obviously.
And besides the obligation factor, a tip is a significantly smaller amount of money. If I thought there was a significant risk of the tip going missing or it was a lot of money, yes, I would stay at the table until I saw that the server had collected it.
Why is the burden on Bob? Why is the burden not on the restaurant to prove that he did not pay?
You could say that Bob could have taken more steps to ensure that the payment was received, but the restaurant could have likewise taken steps and had a policy to ensure that they received payment (i.e. "Please do not leave cash payments on the table. Before leaving, wait for your server to collect payment.)
Agreed. The video store can take out the night drop and inform you that from this point forward you must return the video during store hours. Likewise, in addition to what you said, the restaurant can say “No more leaving money on tables. Hand it to the server.” The restaurant (in states where it is legal) can demand prepayment before they bring you food. You are free to accept these new terms or take your business elsewhere.
But, again, posters here keep saying without any support that for some reason it is a customer’s responsibility to make sure that a restaurant employee has money in hand before leaving. As you said, when it is part of the usage of trade that money on the table is an accepted form of payment then Bob’s obligation is at an end once he does that.
As another poster said upthread, if you did that at Home Depot, you would not be protected because it is not in customary usage to throw money on the counter at a retail store and walk out with merchandise, or leave $10,000 that you owe in a duffel bag on the street corner.
Some posters are placing an obligation on Bob that is not recognized by the contract he entered. But past the legalities, I don’t see any moral obligation on his part either. He paid exactly how others have commonly paid for years. He didn’t do anything wrong that should require him to pay twice for his meal.
I asked why you believe that. You said I must be a shitty lawyer. Unless this is just a personal attack, then I repeat my request and ask why in the world you would believe that a person in Bob’s shoes must prove his innocence. Because it does not represent any sort of law anywhere in the free world.
But I guess since I am such a shitty lawyer, at least on this point, you can use your superior knowledge to correct me.
Yeah. Maybe the OP’s phrasing “Who is responsible?” has muddied the waters some by insisting on the ethical dimension of the problem. Is it arguably somewhat irresponsible for restaurants or their waitstaff not to surveil tables more carefully for tendered cash payments? One could make that case, maybe.
But if the question is “In practical terms, whose is the responsibility for settling this effectively unpaid debt?”, the answer AFAICT is unambiguously Bob.
I just want to point out that this is NOT an equivalent scenario. A more analogous situation would be: you get your paycheck by mail. Someone goes through your mail and takes it, and cashes it. Who, if anyone, is responsible for the loss of income? Should your employer re-issue a check, even though they have paid once already? Should you just eat the loss and move on? Is the mailman somehow at fault?
Everyone can agree that the thief is legally culpable for the crime, but assuming the thief is not caught, the question boils down to how the parties involved in the financial transaction deal with the practical problem of money gone missing.