3 ms·

> Maybe I should try that next time I'm in a restaurant. Perhaps ironically, people frequently place orders at restaurant and then decline to come to pick them

> Maybe I should try that next time I'm in a restaurant. Perhaps ironically, people frequently place orders at restaurant and then decline to come to pick them up & pay. They restaurant still ends up providing the service they promise, and the customer declines to make the payment they promise. It's terrible, but my understanding is it's similarly quite commonplace and hardly ever prosecuted.

thombat 5y ago
Not quite the same, since McDonalds actually enjoyed the benefit of the labor without paying. So it's as if the customers sat down and ate the meal, then declined to pay. If the cops get called the consequence is probably worse than merely having to pay what was already agreed.
- dataflow 5y ago
  Neither is a perfect analogy, but note that in your example the customer is actually depriving the restaurant of their possession of some goods without payment, i.e. it's theft. The example here is about services being rendered.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Restaurants regularly resell goods in cases like this. I’ve had it happen when I was 10 minutes late. Worst case they can give it to workers at the end of the shift.
    - dataflow 5y ago
      I wish they did that more! I haven't seen it happen much personally but I'm glad you've seen it a lot. I know not long ago I went to a restaurant where I saw meals had been waiting for pickup for several hours... right before they were closing. Probably easier for small businesses than chains/franchises I'm guessing.
  - verall 5y ago
    Are you saying that labor being deprived of their, uh, labor, is not comparable to businesses being deprived of their goods?
    - dataflow 5y ago
      I'm saying that legally speaking (not morally speaking), being deprived of intangible things (aka services, think "verbs") is somewhat different from being deprived of tangible things (aka goods, think "nouns"). Neither entirely different (obviously), nor entirely identical (obviously). They're not treated the same way in general and I don't think you'd want to treat them identically for legal purposes.
ipaddr 5y ago
Because it is not a crime. You can order whatever you want unless a payment is made and product accepted a legal transaction hasn't occured. Missed items, uncooked food, poor quality are common reasons not to accept and send back. You can decide to decline the transaction at any point. What businesses do is make the person pay first. Rarely does a fastfood worker take my order.. stop.. makes my food and then asks me to pay. They take my money serve the next person, I wait to get called. A drive through is different and they get very low rates of drivers ordering only to drive away. Businesses have found a way to deal with this issue.
- dataflow 5y ago
  All the examples you mention are those where the customer actually intended to pay if the meal is properly cooked, and thus would have if there were no issues. Not ones where they place an order intending not to make the payment they promise to. Are you sure that isn't a crime? It sounds like fraud to me (or some other crime) but I'm not a lawyer. The problem is likely that distinguishing these for prosecution/conviction, but that's probably a similarity with wage theft, not a dissimilarity.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- SiVal 5y ago
  "You can order whatever you want unless a payment is made and product accepted a legal transaction hasn't occured." It may or may not be a crime depending on intent, but a transaction is not the issue. It is breach of contract. Laws obviously vary around the world, but the US Uniform Commercial Code is probably typical. The restaurant has made an offer. The customer has accepted it. There is agreed-to "consideration" (value) to be provided by both sides. If the restaurant does what they said they would do you, having accepted the "offer" by making an order, are bound to do what you said you would do (pay the price that you knew was the price when you accepted the offer.) Just increase the dollar amounts by a large enough factor, and you'll see it. A company sells widgets. I order a million dollars worth, items that can't simply be put back in stock and resold to others. They make them, but I don't pick them up. I'm not arguing that they didn't do their part by making defective items. I'm (probably) not required to pick them up, but I am required to pay what I agreed. You are saying "no transaction occurred", but that's not at issue. The company will (rightly) sue me for breach of contract. It's the same for fast food except that the static friction of legal costs vastly overpowers the scale of recovery from the breach of contract for each instance of no-show. But if a single order for $10,000 (catering a company picnic) is not picked up, you get past the friction, and the restaurant will sue for breach of contract.

thombat 5y ago

Not quite the same, since McDonalds actually enjoyed the benefit of the labor without paying. So it's as if the customers sat down and ate the meal, then declined to pay. If the cops get called the consequence is probably worse than merely having to pay what was already agreed.

dataflow 5y ago
Neither is a perfect analogy, but note that in your example the customer is actually depriving the restaurant of their possession of some goods without payment, i.e. it's theft. The example here is about services being rendered.
- Retric 5y ago
  Restaurants regularly resell goods in cases like this. I’ve had it happen when I was 10 minutes late. Worst case they can give it to workers at the end of the shift.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    I wish they did that more! I haven't seen it happen much personally but I'm glad you've seen it a lot. I know not long ago I went to a restaurant where I saw meals had been waiting for pickup for several hours... right before they were closing. Probably easier for small businesses than chains/franchises I'm guessing.
- verall 5y ago
  Are you saying that labor being deprived of their, uh, labor, is not comparable to businesses being deprived of their goods?
  - dataflow 5y ago
    I'm saying that legally speaking (not morally speaking), being deprived of intangible things (aka services, think "verbs") is somewhat different from being deprived of tangible things (aka goods, think "nouns"). Neither entirely different (obviously), nor entirely identical (obviously). They're not treated the same way in general and I don't think you'd want to treat them identically for legal purposes.

ipaddr 5y ago

Because it is not a crime. You can order whatever you want unless a payment is made and product accepted a legal transaction hasn't occured. Missed items, uncooked food, poor quality are common reasons not to accept and send back. You can decide to decline the transaction at any point. What businesses do is make the person pay first. Rarely does a fastfood worker take my order.. stop.. makes my food and then asks me to pay. They take my money serve the next person, I wait to get called. A drive through is different and they get very low rates of drivers ordering only to drive away. Businesses have found a way to deal with this issue.

dataflow 5y ago
All the examples you mention are those where the customer actually intended to pay if the meal is properly cooked, and thus would have if there were no issues. Not ones where they place an order intending not to make the payment they promise to. Are you sure that isn't a crime? It sounds like fraud to me (or some other crime) but I'm not a lawyer. The problem is likely that distinguishing these for prosecution/conviction, but that's probably a similarity with wage theft, not a dissimilarity.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
SiVal 5y ago
"You can order whatever you want unless a payment is made and product accepted a legal transaction hasn't occured." It may or may not be a crime depending on intent, but a transaction is not the issue. It is breach of contract. Laws obviously vary around the world, but the US Uniform Commercial Code is probably typical. The restaurant has made an offer. The customer has accepted it. There is agreed-to "consideration" (value) to be provided by both sides. If the restaurant does what they said they would do you, having accepted the "offer" by making an order, are bound to do what you said you would do (pay the price that you knew was the price when you accepted the offer.) Just increase the dollar amounts by a large enough factor, and you'll see it. A company sells widgets. I order a million dollars worth, items that can't simply be put back in stock and resold to others. They make them, but I don't pick them up. I'm not arguing that they didn't do their part by making defective items. I'm (probably) not required to pick them up, but I am required to pay what I agreed. You are saying "no transaction occurred", but that's not at issue. The company will (rightly) sue me for breach of contract. It's the same for fast food except that the static friction of legal costs vastly overpowers the scale of recovery from the breach of contract for each instance of no-show. But if a single order for $10,000 (catering a company picnic) is not picked up, you get past the friction, and the restaurant will sue for breach of contract.