Were we right to walk out?

naedanger

discat11 wrote: »

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

Can you then explain what is the purpose of the wording in bold in the following quotation from the Theft Act 1978?

Making off without payment.
(1)Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence.

Source:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/31

marliepanda

naedanger wrote: »

Can you then explain what is the purpose of the wording in bold in the following quotation from the Theft Act 1978?

Making off without payment.
(1)Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence.

Source:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/31

Case law shows convictions being overturned only when there is evidence of an intent to return (aka not just them saying that) such as an agreement in place, leaving some sort of security etc. It is nigh on impossible to prove that someone did not intend to make payment.

If it was true that an intention to pay was suffice, then no one would ever be convicted of stealing from a shop (I was going to pay for it later, sorry) or for driving off a petrol forecourt (just going home for my purse) or leaving a restaurant without paying.

Silver-Surfer_2

discat11 wrote: »

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.

It's up to any prosecution to prove their case. Part of that will be proving the defendants intent to avoid payment. The restaurant terms and conditions have nothing to do with it. They tried to pay, waited at the till then left. The dishonesty test would need to be applied as to whether the actions were reasonable with regards to paying at the time.

Silver-Surfer_2

marliepanda wrote: »

Case law shows convictions being overturned only when there is evidence of an intent to return (aka not just them saying that) such as an agreement in place, leaving some sort of security etc. It is nigh on impossible to prove that someone did not intend to make payment.

If it was true that an intention to pay was suffice, then no one would ever be convicted of stealing from a shop (I was going to pay for it later, sorry) or for driving off a petrol forecourt (just going home for my purse) or leaving a restaurant without paying.

You don't get charged with making off without payment from a shop but straight forward theft. As long as any legislation mentions intent it would be part of the case to prove intent.

That's why the offence of taking a vehicle without the owners consent was introduced. Joy riders were walking free from theft charges by saying they weren't going to permanently deprive the owner.

naedanger

marliepanda wrote: »

Case law shows convictions being overturned only when there is evidence of an intent to return (aka not just them saying that) such as an agreement in place, leaving some sort of security etc.

This is simply wrong. However I realise I cannot convince you of this point if you simply ignore what the law says in black and white.

marliepanda

naedanger wrote: »

This is simply wrong. However I realise I cannot convince you of this point if you simply ignore the what the law says in black and white.

So you say it is legal for someone to walk out of a restaurant without paying, and when the restaurant asks them for it, and they say 'oh I was going to pay' then all is forgiven?

OP clearly felt they didnt have to pay because of the bad service. They were wrong.

discat11

TBF it's highly unlikely a restaurant is going to waste their time & money pursuing a private prosecution, but although intent needs to be proven -how would the OP have paid the debt owed at the time they made off without payment?
They clearly showed no intent to return and settle this and left no proof of that intent at the time.

I absolutely defend their right to say what they think the meal was worth etc however but that isn't the case here.

Anyway short answer to the OPs title line -No, you weren't right to simply walk out because in doing so you risk being accused of an offence under the theft act.

Silver-Surfer_2

marliepanda wrote: »

So you say it is legal for someone to walk out of a restaurant without paying, and when the restaurant asks them for it, and they say 'oh I was going to pay' then all is forgiven?

OP clearly felt they didnt have to pay because of the bad service. They were wrong.

You've already been told under certain circumstances yes it is.

naedanger

marliepanda wrote: »

So you say it is legal for someone to walk out of a restaurant without paying, and when the restaurant asks them for it, and they say 'oh I was going to pay' then all is forgiven?

I have said what the law is and I have given a link so that you can read it for yourself.

However it seems you are simply ignoring what it says because you believe it is impossible to ever prove intent.

daytona0

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

You've already been told under certain circumstances yes it is.

OP shown no intent on paying at the time of walking out, so it was against the law.

OP only changed their tune a few posts in when talking about the family member who was going back.

Fits fine with the legislation you stated, and if it doesn't then can I kindly ask what the legal time frame is for OP to go back to the restaurant and make payment? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? 10 years? 50 years?