waiting for restaurant to take payment - how long reasonable

tir21

you must be a pretty mean/horrible person.

more poor than horrible i think

definately dont think i am worthy of eternal punishment with the pedos for diddling a massive restaurant chain out of a tenner

halibut2209

Well if Yahoo answers says so, it must be right!

BTW, I'm also a lawyer and I know 100%

Fosterdog

By the logic in your own quote you still owe them the money. They offered you the bill (incorrect) you made an offer to pay that amount (invitation to treat) and they rejected that offer and chose to revise the bill. Until the payment had been accepted and the bill amended to reflect any changes the contract was still open to invitation from both parties.

Valli

'I'm a lawyer, I know 100%'

Priceless!

tir21

Valli wrote: »

'I'm a lawyer, I know 100%'

Priceless!

theres no more reason to believe your assertions than those i quoted from yahoo answers

Valli

No, of course there isn't. I haven't made any assertions about my qualifications though. But I have referred to specific legislation and legal process, all of which is ready verifiable by researching and referencing a range of sources.

The whole point of my intervention in this thread was to counter the argument that if the meal cost £x but the bill says £y then one only need pay £y.

Since the customer had access to the menu price at the time of ordering then the customer cannot rely on claiming that he/she paid the bill at the time it was presented and therefore is not legally obliged to pay any amount unbilled after the event.

This is not the case. The restaurant can, should it choose to, pursue the customer for the addtional amount later. If the case then ended up in court the jury would decide whether the customer had made an honest mistake or could reasonably have been expected to realise, at the time the bill was presented, that a mistake had been made.

If the restaurant makes a mistake it doesn't remove the obligation of the customer to pay for the meal/drinks consumed, if requested.

Slowhand

tir21 wrote: »

more poor than horrible i think

definately dont think i am worthy of eternal punishment with the pedos for diddling a massive restaurant chain out of a tenner

You clearly don't think, otherwise you would have pointed out the bill error and have been out of the place in jig time. Good to see you admit to diddling them despite your previous protestations.

tir21

Fosterdog wrote: »

By the logic in your own quote you still owe them the money. They offered you the bill (incorrect) you made an offer to pay that amount (invitation to treat) and they rejected that offer and chose to revise the bill.

i was never told my offer to pay the bill i was presented with had been rejected or that the bill was being revised. i was waiting with my card for the card reader to appear - and after 17 minutes it had not. If within the 17 minites it had apeared in its origival form or with an ammended amount to pay - i would have paid it.

Until the payment had been accepted and the bill amended to reflect any changes the contract was still open to invitation from both parties.

yes but i consider that i had given them enough time to either return the original bill and the card reader or an amended bill

tir21

Slowhand wrote: »

You clearly don't think, otherwise you would have pointed out the bill error and have been out of the place in jig time. Good to see you admit to diddling them despite your previous protestations.

yes i was taking an advantage of their error - there can be no doubt about it. the question is whether it is a crininal offence to fail to alert the restaurant when they give you an incorrect bill and you spot the mistake.

its similar to something i read on here yesterday about people buying lots of products from tescos because they had crazy points offers on them. Or people buying lots of vacuum cleaners so they could fly abroad.

tir21

No, of course there isn't. I haven't made any assertions about my qualifications though. But I have referred to specific legislation and legal process, all of which is ready verifiable by researching and referencing a range of sources.

and that answer from yahoo is readily verifiable by researching and referencing a range of sources. If that answer was wrong in law then perhaps you could tell us on what point of law is it wrong

The whole point of my intervention in this thread was to counter the argument that if the meal cost £x but the bill says £y then one only need pay £y.

if all one is concerned about is avoiding committing a criminal offence then all one need do is pay £y. the law does not require anyone issued with a bill for £10 to pay more than that amount.

Since the customer had access to the menu price at the time of ordering then the customer cannot rely on claiming that he/she paid the bill at the time it was presented and therefore is not legally obliged to pay any amount unbilled after the event.

dont think anyone is saying that. The point is that it is not an offence to pay what is on the bill, at the time the bill is presented - even if the customer realises it is an incorrect amount.

This is not the case. The restaurant can, should it choose to, pursue the customer for the addtional amount later. If the case then ended up in court the jury would decide whether the customer had made an honest mistake or could reasonably have been expected to realise, at the time the bill was presented, that a mistake had been made.

i dont think that if it was an intentional mistake or honest mistake would make any difference to how the court proceeded. i think the court would look at evidence of whether a mistake had been made.

whether the customer knew is irrelevant because it is not a legal requirement for the customer to tell the restaurant how much is owed.

its up for the restaurant to tell the customer how much is owed and there is no requirement on the customer to enter a debate about this figure

If the restaurant makes a mistake it doesn't remove the obligation of the customer to pay for the meal/drinks consumed, if requested.

thats not the issue