3 ms·
The fact the consumer didn’t do any due diligence doesn’t change the situation. Perhaps the situation should change - but somebody has to lose when promises can
by jdsully 7y ago
The fact the consumer didn’t do any due diligence doesn’t change the situation. Perhaps the situation should change - but somebody has to lose when promises can’t be fulfilled.
As for dine and dash there is a difference when there is no intent to pay. If somehow between when you ordered and when it came time to pay you declared bankruptcy then the resteraunt is SOL. The short timeframe just means its very unlikely you had intent to pay.
For bankrupt companies you will see attempts to limit future expenses (i.e. cancelling employee trips etc) but the fact that there is a continual stream of transactions makes it much messier. It is fraud if the company racks up large numbers of unusual expenses just before bankruptcy is declared.
- shkkmo 7y ago> The fact the consumer didn’t do any due diligence doesn’t change the situation. It is the reasonable expectations that differ. Customers are not expected to ask for (and will not be granted) financial information or proof of collateral. It is completely unreasonable to give those customers the same level of risk as creditors who are expected to ask for (and receive) such information. > It is fraud if the company racks up large numbers of unusual expenses just before bankruptcy is declared. So when a company does not currently have the financial ability to fulfill a purchase (say without obtaining a government bailout), how is it not fraud to sell a product and collect money without informing the customer of that risk? > As for dine and dash there is a difference when there is no intent to pay. I'd like to see you try telling your waiter "I'm a bit tight on money right now, you'll have to wait for next month for me to pay my bill." Let's see if they call the cops and you get arrested. Your argument is rather ridiculous.