Were we right to walk out?

Silver-Surfer_2

daytona0 wrote: »

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?

For recording and investigation purposes I'd agree, however the dishonesty aspect of the offence is still an issue.

naedanger

daytona0 wrote: »

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

If the person intended to pay later then it would not be against the law.

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?

No time frame is specified. It would depend on the circumstances.

daytona0

naedanger wrote: »

If the person intended to pay later then it would not be against the law.


No time frame is specified. It would depend on the circumstances.

So I can walk into nandos tonight, order some food and then walk out on the bill without saying anything? AND THEN go back in 10 years and square the bill?

Well that's my Weds night sorted

Oh, and for the purposes of avoiding breaking the law I would like to point out that I have EVERY INTENTION of paying the bill in 10 years time.

Silver-Surfer_2

daytona0 wrote: »

So I can walk into nandos tonight, order some food and then walk out on the bill without saying anything? AND THEN go back in 10 years and square the bill?

Well that's my Weds night sorted

Oh, and for the purposes of avoiding breaking the law I would like to point out that I have EVERY INTENTION of paying the bill in 10 years time.

Hate to spoil your Wednesday, but in Nandos you pay before you eat.

marliepanda

daytona0 wrote: »

So I can walk into nandos tonight, order some food and then walk out on the bill without saying anything? AND THEN go back in 10 years and square the bill?

Well that's my Weds night sorted

Oh, and for the purposes of avoiding breaking the law I would like to point out that I have EVERY INTENTION of paying the bill in 10 years time.

I expect to have a lot more money *fingers crossed* in 10 years time, so I am going to eat like a King until then!

Luckily I don't like Nandos :P

naedanger

daytona0 wrote: »

So I can walk into nandos tonight, order some food and then walk out on the bill without saying anything? AND THEN go back in 10 years and square the bill?

Well that's my Weds night sorted

Oh, and for the purposes of avoiding breaking the law I would like to point out that I have EVERY INTENTION of paying the bill in 10 years time.

In the circumstances you have described you have behaved dishonestly as you intended at the outset to avoid payment for a considerable time. So I strongly suspect you would be found guilty of making off (if all the facts came out).

However in the other case the reason the person did not pay was that they found it very difficult to do so. If however they then never paid for the next 10 years they might have a hard time arguing that they did nevertheless intend to pay.

In another example, a person walks off from an outside cafe (perhaps distracted by an old friend) and completely forgets not just to pay but that they have failed to pay. In such a case even if they never ever went back they would not be guilty of making off.

There is no time frame. It depends on the circumstances.

Andy_L

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

H
I'm not rising to the bait.

Not paying for food eaten ( regardless of how long waited/ poor service) = theft

No. A restaurant meal is a contract and if they restaurant don't fulfil their side of the contact you can, legally, refuse to pay. Although, ultimately, it could come down to the courts to decide if the restaurant or the diner is at fault

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

If the person intended to pay later then it would not be against the law.


No time frame is specified. It would depend on the circumstances.

Actually it would - unless there was an agreement with the restaurant to pay at a later date then liability to pay has already arisen and the actus reus of without payment is complete.

Even offering partial payment may not be enough to quash a conviction - such was the case in R v Aziz where the passenger offered £4 for a £15 taxi fare.

The very reason you're supposed to leave your details with the restaurant even when there has been issues with your meal/service is to stop you from being charged with making off without payment.

As for dishonest, its dishonest to obtain services and not pay for them. You may have a defence against claims of dishonesty - such as in the case of R v Brooks & Brooks where the daughter thought the father was paying and the father made off without payment - both were initially convicted but the daughter managed to have hers overturned on the basis she thought her father was paying so was not being dishonest - but that would be for them to show.

Given the number of people here saying it was wrong, I'm not so confident that a jury wouldn't convict.

daytona0

Andy_L wrote: »

No. A restaurant meal is a contract and if they restaurant don't fulfil their side of the contact you can, legally, refuse to pay. Although, ultimately, it could come down to the courts to decide if the restaurant or the diner is at fault

The restaurant DID fulfill their side of the contract! OP went in and ordered food + drink, said items were delivered in a timely manner. To quote OP:

OP wrote:

waited over half an hour for it [the food]...fair enough

So the only beef is with the settling of the invoice. I don't think a court would side with the diner in this case because, UNLESS the staff were purposely ignoring OP, the OP could have put in some more effort in flagging down an employee.

Every other part of the contract seems to be "fair enough"

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

Actually it would - unless there was an agreement with the restaurant to pay at a later date then liability to pay has already arisen and the actus reus of without payment is complete.

I do not understand your point. Are you saying a person will have broken the law if they left without paying even if they did so without dishonest intent? Read what Lord Hailsham said in the following case:

Allen, R v (1985) HL

---

D left a hotel without paying his bill of £1,286. D claimed he genuinely expected to pay the bill and intended merely to defer payment until he received the proceeds of certain business deals.

Held: The words 'with intent to avoid payment' required an intention to avoid payment permanently and an intention to defer payment did not suffice to establish the offence.

Lord Hailsham:
"To secure a conviction under section 3 the following must be proved:
(1) that the defendant in fact made off without making payment on the spot;
(2) the following mental elements — (a) knowledge that payment on the spot was required or expected of him; and (b) dishonesty; and (c) intent to avoid payment [sc. 'Of the amount due']."

Not guilty

Even offering partial payment may not be enough to quash a conviction - such was the case in R v Aziz where the passenger offered £4 for a £15 taxi fare.

This case is completely different. The person refused to pay when requested to do so, was aggressive and ran off.

The very reason you're supposed to leave your details with the restaurant even when there has been issues with your meal/service is to stop you from being charged with making off without payment.

It is a sensible thing to do but failure to do this does not automatically mean someone had dishonest intent.

As for dishonest, its dishonest to obtain services and not pay for them.

If you set out to obtain services and not pay for them then I agree. But there are circumstances where you can leave without paying and without being dishonest. This is explicitly covered in the wording of the statue. And Lord Halisham, no less, has said dishonest intent is required for someone to be convicted of making off.

You may have a defence against claims of dishonesty - such as in the case of R v Brooks & Brooks where the daughter thought the father was paying and the father made off without payment - both were initially convicted but the daughter managed to have hers overturned on the basis she thought her father was paying so was not being dishonest - but that would be for them to show.

In summary the daughter left without paying but was not guilty of making off because she did not have dishonest intent. So leaving without payment is not sufficient to be convicted.

Given the number of people here saying it was wrong, I'm not so confident that a jury wouldn't convict.

I doubt it would get to jury because of the circumstances. Furthermore the people on this forum are a self selecting group, and have not heard legal arguments stating how they should reach their verdict.

That said I would want to avoid any risk of even being accused of dishonesty and partly for that reason would have left contact details in the circumstances. (However I could see myself leaving without paying because of being absent minded in certain circumstances. I fairly recently nearly left a pub without paying for food. Someone else ordered, so payment was not on my mind and I was distracted when we were leaving. I may also have thought they would have paid when ordering - but I had not paid anyone as we were leaving. Luckily the person I was with had not forgotten. However honest mistakes can happen.)

The following case is interesting. The person admitted dishonest intent but was found not guilty.

MacDavitt, R v (1981) CC

---

D had a meal with some friends but refused to pay the bill. He started to leave but did not do so when he was told the police had been called. D admitted he intended to leave the restaurant without paying.

Held: 'Makes off' refers to making off from the spot where the payment is required or expected.
What that spot is depends on the facts in any case. In this case, the spot was the restaurant and he did not leave the restaurant.

Not guilty