Were we right to walk out?

Stevie_Palimo

If it was me I would have checked the bill then paid it in cash by offering it to a server or failing this walking into the kitchen with it, You cannot just walk away from a meal and then say I waited 5 minutes at the till to make a payment when in actual fact you probably waited 1 minute.

People and patience these days is getting worse and everyone is such a hurry to get back home and watch the soaps, In this case either do not go out or simply make more time allowing for delays and worse case scenario cook for yourself.

daytona0

ThumbRemote wrote: »

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Every person has a threshold at which they would walk out. I'm not going to accuse others of theft just because their threshold is slightly different to mine.

Until OP made a later post about a family member going back, it could be interpreted in a way which suggested stealing.

There are too many people who seem to think it's completely black and white, when it's actually all shades of grey.

IT IS black and white; OP is NOT stealing, because they are going back to pay.

I'm just saying that you've (and others) criticised a user for believing that OP was stealing, but haven't criticised OP (and BoP) for carrying out an act which is potentially against the law.

Not saying you are wrong, but the focus is in the wrong place.

And for the record I've walked out of an Indian restaurant when they hadn't taken our food order after an acceptable time. Other customers had come in, been seated and ordered. We'd asked to order, they still didn't come. We'd finished the drinks we got on initially being seated, and didn't pay for them. I wasn't willing to wait around any longer, I had a small child wanting some food, and I was mightily !!!!ed off at being ignored.

Nothing wrong with walking out before getting your food! That's bad customer service. In OP's situation it is probably bad customer service too, but they could have helped themselves.

BUT, and this is possibly why you aren't criticising OP and BoP, why the hell are you entitled to have free drinks? Did you actually pay for them in the end?

discat11

Regardless of the wait and the perceived obstruction to the OP is making a payment I am afraid they 'made off without payment' in this case.

Making off without payment is an offence under s.3 Theft Act 1978.

The offence of making off covers such activities as leaving a restaurant or hotel without paying, not paying a taxi fare and filling up with petrol and driving off.

It is also irrelevant whether the person then intends to return at some unspecified later date and settle the bill, the offence has already been caused.

No one is saying that a customer should wait forever to be properly dealt with, however leaving a note with the debtors details for a future invoice to be sent would, at least, mitigate the offence somewhat.

marliepanda

Notice the 'our son is going back later to pay for it' came after everyone else was saying they had stolen it.

Not in the OP...

I highly doubt they left with that intention, call me cynical.

cono1717

marliepanda wrote: »

Call me cynical.

I'm inclined to agree with cynical.

If not for this posting would the OP have gone back? I doubt it weather it be under malice or because they simply forgot I can't say but I don't think the restaurant would of seen this money otherwise.

If they go back and pay and the restaurant is happy can't we all just get along? :A

Silver-Surfer_2

discat11 wrote: »

Regardless of the wait and the perceived obstruction to the OP is making a payment I am afraid they 'made off without payment' in this case.

Making off without payment is an offence under s.3 Theft Act 1978.

The offence of making off covers such activities as leaving a restaurant or hotel without paying, not paying a taxi fare and filling up with petrol and driving off.

It is also irrelevant whether the person then intends to return at some unspecified later date and settle the bill, the offence has already been caused.

No one is saying that a customer should wait forever to be properly dealt with, however leaving a note with the debtors details for a future invoice to be sent would, at least, mitigate the offence somewhat.

I would say it's very relevant as you've picked only part of the legislation that fits your arguement.

I see you have omitted this part "and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence." If the intent to go back and pay later is there how are they still guilty?

marliepanda

The problem is how on earth do you prove that they intended to come back? A nice note saying 'here's our contact details' would be proof.

Otherwise NO ONE could ever be charged with making off with petrol or food, because they would just say 'oh I was going to come back'

You have no right to leave a restaurant without paying for the food you have received. You can't just add some daft 'oh I'll come back tomorrow' That is not how it works.

The same way if you went to McDonalds, they took your payment and said right, we'll give you your food, but we'll give you it tomorrow, come back later.Unless you agree with the restaurant food is to be paid for later, you cannot just leave without paying for it.

Silver-Surfer_2

marliepanda wrote: »

The problem is how on earth do you prove that they intended to come back? A nice note saying 'here's our contact details' would be proof.

Otherwise NO ONE could ever be charged with making off with petrol or food, because they would just say 'oh I was going to come back'

You have no right to leave a restaurant without paying for the food you have received. You can't just add some daft 'oh I'll come back tomorrow' That is not how it works.

The same way if you went to McDonalds, they took your payment and said right, we'll give you your food, but we'll give you it tomorrow, come back later.Unless you agree with the restaurant food is to be paid for later, you cannot just leave without paying for it.

You have every right to do so, but that's not what's being discussed here.

discat11

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

I would say it's very relevant as you've picked only part of the legislation that fits your arguement.

I see you have omitted this part "and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence." If the intent to go back and pay later is there how are they still guilty?

As I stated quite clearly in an earlier post that unless the restaurant t&c's state (and the OP knew that at the time) that it's ok to eat now and pay later then it isn't ok and they have made off without payment.

In strict liability how would the meal have been paid for at the time by leaving the restaurant?

Answer -it wouldn't have and wasn't in this case.

It's irrelevant what intentions the OP now says are true they are damned by their own actions/inactions.

naedanger

marliepanda wrote: »

The problem is how on earth do you prove that they intended to come back? A nice note saying 'here's our contact details' would be proof.

Otherwise NO ONE could ever be charged with making off with petrol or food, because they would just say 'oh I was going to come back'

You seem to be suggesting the law is not as it currently is.

As Silver-Surfer has quoted, the law currently requires intent not to pay before someone can be found guilty of making off without payment. It is therefore the prosecution's problem to prove an accused person did intend to avoid payment beyond reasonable doubt. The accused does not need to prove they lacked this intent.

The prosecution's job may be difficult. And undoubtedly some guilty people will avoid conviction because of the requirement to prove intent. However if the mere act of leaving without payment was a crime many honest people would be convicted for being forgetful or distracted. (Though I suspect some people here will not believe that people can ever make such a honest mistake.)