united-kingdom commerce payment
At what point can you walk out of a restaurant if they make you wait to pay the bill?
<p>The other day, I ate at a restaurant; the food was fine, and I got to paying the bill.  Their payment system went down.  They couldn't accept cards; only cash, and I didn't have the cash on me for the bill.  In the end, their payments system was down for about 45 minutes, with several diners being forced to wait around.  The staff didn't at any time offer a reassurance that if things weren't fixed in a certain period of time, we could just leave.</p>

<p>But it got me thinking to the legality of things - at what point can you just leave?  Is it <em>always</em> technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill?  Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary?  What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Probably depends on what you mean with <em>just</em> leaving. If just leaving translates I haven't paid and <em>I won't pay</em> (because of the hassle with the card) then that's probably <a href="https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/31" rel="noreferrer">Making Off Without Payment, section 3 Theft Act 1978</a> (Thanks @bdsl).</p>

<blockquote>
  <p> Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary?
  What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I don't think a restaurant can physically detain you. Not even the 45 min you have been waiting. But if you leave without paying and <em>without an agreement with them how &amp; when to pay</em> they can of course call the police because again that looks very much like making off without payment.</p>

<p>According to your post, they did provide a payment system (cash) which was working all the time and that moreover has the special status of being legal tender.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>if you don't physically have the cash on you, you can be sued?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You can be sued if you don't pay your bill (assuming the bill itself is correct) when it's due. In order to avoid endless hassle of the "I tried to pay via <em>x</em>, but they wouldn't accept this." type, legal tender defines ways of payment of a debt that the creditor/seller <em>must</em> accept.<br>
In many legislations, cash in the local currency provides such a fallback if other payment methods fail. Note that cash payment is very robust against internet failure, broken devices and power </p>

<p>The UK (+ US) meaning of legal tender is that the restaurant must accept this means of settling the debt (at this time, the food is already eaten but not payed) - but they don't have to accept any other means of payment. (Note that e.g. for the EUR-countries there is at least a <a href="https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-10-92_en.htm?locale=en" rel="noreferrer">recommendation to make acceptance of legal tender mandatory also in retail</a>, which includes simultaneous exchange food vs. payment).<br>
The 2nd important implication of this is that any argumentation along the lines that no reasonable means of payment were available would be <em>very</em> weak.</p>

<p>You are not required to have sufficient cash with you to pay your bill if you can reasonably assume that some other way of payment will be acceptable to the restaurant.<br>
I see that like a spare wheel for a car: if you have a flat tire (card doesn't work) having a spare wheel (cash) allows you to deal with the issue with less hassle than if you don't: change your wheel vs. having to get your car brought to a workshop and wait until they put on a new tire (pay cash instead of waiting for the card to work again or a tedious hunt for another payment method).  </p>

<hr>

<p>I'd like to point out that <strong>card doesn't work and not sufficient cash at hand</strong> (or forgotten purse) is something that <strong>happens quite often</strong> in general (rarely for any given transaction, but we have <em>lots</em> of transactions). I'd expect a restaurant or a gas station to be experienced in dealing with that. </p>

<p>In any case, there are several possibilities to resolve the issue short of "just leaving":</p>

<p>The key to all this is communication: talk to the restaurant to find a way to resolve the issue. Reassure them that you're not trying to use the opportunity to defraud them - that's what they are afraid of in this situation.</p>

<ul>
<li><p>"Where can I find an ATM?" </p>

<ul>
<li>Possibly offering a deposit: "And would you mind looking after my bag [phone] until I'm back?" </li>
<li>Possibly showing them your ID card (or similar, if you have any) so they have your address: remember that so far you are an anonymous customer for them: which means that suing you for the money would be somewhere between too expensive and impossible.</li>
<li>If you are a group, it should be sufficient if only one of you leaves in search of cash.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><p>Credit cards can be charged in a total offline way (MOTO = mail order/telephone order) where the credit card data is entered manually by the seller: the restaurant may be able to charge your credit card if fill in a paper credit card payment form.  </p></li>
<li><p>They may accept settlement via other payment systems:</p>

<ul>
<li>paypal &amp; Co.</li>
<li>wire the money via your online banking account (even if that doesn't give an instantaneous transfer, ask them if that's OK with them if you show/forward them the "transfer accepted message" for now)</li>
<li>allow them to withdraw the money from your account via direct debit or something similar<br>
<em>I'd not expect a restaurant to accept this possibility as they're probably not familiar with it and it means a lot of hassle for them with their bank to get listed to receive money that way.</em></li>
<li>if you are in a region where cheques are still in regular use, that may be a solution as well.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><p>Restaurants like any other business can write invoices. They usually don't like this because their risk of having costly trouble to get the money is high.<br>
While your printout bill is technically an invoice already, it can be turned into an invoice (+ copy for them) giving your name + address and specifying how and when you'll pay. Which would keep track of how you (pl. = you + restaurant) decided to settle the bill under the peculiar circumstances. This works even in case of e.g. a power outage that prevents you from getting cash from an ATM in the neighborhood.</p></li>
</ul>

<h2>It is illegal for you to take a meal and intend to not pay.</h2>

<p>You have a reasonable expectation of using a credit card if they normally take it,  The situation of finding out the machine is down <em>isn't, by itself</em>, intent to not pay.  So if they call the police, and while you're still in the restaurant, accuse you of refusing to pay -- the police certainly will not arrest you. </p>

<h2>However, "intent to pay" has a proof of the pudding.</h2>

<p>The proof of the pudding is that you ultimately did pay.  </p>

<p>The problem with situations like this is a lot of people "think financially in real-time" and do not recognize past or future in their thinking.  In their logic, the moment they walk out the restaurant without paying, the meal is in the past, forgotten, and irrelevant.  In their logic, they have escaped the restaurant bill forever.  </p>

<p>That is wishful thinking.  The rest of the world thinks in <em>accrual</em>.  You accrued a debt to the restaurant when you ordered the meal.  You need to pay reasonably soon.  At the end of the meal is certainly preferred; however within 48 hours is also acceptable.  </p>

<p>The upshot is, it's a foot race between "you getting back to the reastaurant to settle the bill" and "them calling the police on you". </p>

<p>So <em>kicking that can down the road</em> day by day for a week, on rationalization after rationalization, is <em>definitely not the thing to do</em>. </p>

<p>It's somewhat a different matter if you are well known to staff/owner as a regular, and come by on a regular interval.  My local haunt had a problem ringing me up on a Wednesday visit, so they said to catch them next Wednesday. </p>

<p>Once, a police officer called me and said, in as many words, "Do you own this car? You might want to go back to the Shell Station at 33rd and Main, and settle your bill". They had me on security camera doing a drive-off, and the officer correctly guessed it was a plain error. If I had ignored the situation for several days, I'm sure he would have stopped by to give me a free ride to jail.  </p>

<p>If I fill my car with diesel and suddenly realise I've left my wallet at home, the attendant will take a note of my car registration, which will be all over cctv anyway, along with my face. I'll promise to come back and pay within a reasonable amount of time that is agreed. If I fail to honour the agreement they will call the police and report it as theft.</p>

<p>I'd have an expectation that a restaurant would be capable of a similar procedure. </p>

<p>Which party is to blame for the inability to pay doesn't seem relevant to me. Either a payment can be made or it can't. If it can't, come to an arrangement that both parties are happy with and follow through.</p>

<p>All this talk of suing or being forced to wait, seems like overkill for a very simple situation that is easily solved if both parties are to be being reasonable </p>

<p>They can’t hold you there for any period of time, as that would be false imprisonment. You have a legal obligation to pay the bill; however, there is no contract about when your payment is due.</p>

<p>You can leave at any time without paying, so long as you have the intention to pay. You can leave your contact details so there is proof of your intent to pay later.</p>

<p>Walking away without paying comes under three possible criminal acts:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_Act_1968" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Theft Act 1968</a>: defines crimes related to "dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive the other of it’". ("Appropriating" basically means treating the objects as if one was the owner, so taking it to keep or to sell, etc). This is the basic definition of theft in English law.</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_Act_1978" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Theft Act 1978</a>: defines the crime of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_off_without_payment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">making off without payment</a></li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud_Act_2006" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Fraud Act 2006</a>: defines crimes related to obtaining goods and services dishonestly by deception, or creating  gains and losses (for oneself or other people) by dishonest false statements, etc.</li>
</ul>

<p>In your case, there is initially no dishonesty. The person visited and ate, and clearly intended to pay. After eating, they queued up and waited to pay.  </p>

<p>If they do not at any time act dishonestly (by giving a false address or details, or something else dishonest), then they <em>cannot</em> be guilty of an offence under either the Theft Act 1968 or the Fraud Act 2006, full stop. </p>

<p>(Note that the law is quite exacting here. For example, even if they impulsively decided after eating, to dishonestly evade payment, because of the payment issues, technically <em>the meal and services they already enjoyed, were not <strong>obtained</em></strong> by any dishonesty or deception, or with any intent to evade payment!)</p>

<p>That leaves the Theft Act 1978. Section 3 defines the offence of "Making off without payment". Cutting out irrelevant clauses, it says that the offence involves <strong>"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</strong>".</p>

<p>That means, it is only a crime if (1) done in a dishonest manner, and (2) the aim was to avoid payment. </p>

<p>So for example, leaving your correct details, or even leaving no details but being able to persuade a court that you did intend to return and pay the amount, or even disputing the amount in an honest manner but giving them enough details to sue you ("I don't think you deserve payment because of the delay, but sue me if you disagree. Here is my address"), would <strong>all</strong> be enough to stop it being a crime.</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_off_without_payment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia confirms that this was the way the courts see it, as well</a>: <em>"In R v Allen, the House of Lords said that, in order for the offence to be committed, there must be "an intention to permanently deprive" by making off, and that a mere "intention to defer" payment is not sufficient. In theory, a person could eat a meal at a restaurant, not pay, but leave his name and address in order for the restaurant to start civil recovery procedures against him - as long as the details were correct, and he did intend to pay at some point in the future (by way of civil recovery) then no offence under Section 3 would be committed."</em></p>

<p>As for forcing you to stay, in English law <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a private citizen can only detain another person against their will, in very limited circumstances</a>. Of which this wouldn't be one, unless they had "reasonable grounds" to believe a crime was being/had been committed, and the action was <em>necessary</em>. This moves into the area of citizens arrest, right to apprehend, false imprisonment, (un)lawful detention, assault (physical contact), affray and other similar crimes (causing fear of harm in another). They would be at great risk of those, and would have to prove they were not culpable, and you would have the right to resist or use reasonable force if needed, to escape them, if you acted honestly, had an honest belief they were acting unlawfully, or your response was "reasonable". But it's hard to cover that aspect in depth because it's so deeply tied into exactly who did what, and who believed what, and on what basis, and how reasonably.</p>

<p>The merchant can not hold you indefinitely (legally or practically).  That being said, you must ask the merchant to provide you with a non-electronic payment method that is mutually agreeable / possible. </p>

<p>The merchant's payment system does comprise a credit card system.  A modern   <strong>payment system comprises electronic and non-electronic means of payment</strong>: the number of the card can be recorded (a carbon-copy impression of the card was the standard procedure in the early 1980s prior to electronic payment) and an authorized amount can be signed for by the customer. </p>

<p><strong>If I were the merchant</strong>, I would simply verify the card over the telephone and confirm the identity of the customer with an ID.  A 5 minute detention of the customer is unreasonable: it is the duty of the merchant to provide for a backup in the event the electronic system is inoperative and provide a procedure for the customer to follow that does not require a potentially indefinite wait / detention.  Having a manual procedure in the event of electronic failure is in my interest and ensuring good customer service.</p>

<p><strong>If I were the customer</strong>, I would first ask what is the process procedure and attempt to follow it if it does not require detention / waiting.    In the absence of procedure I would leave an IOU (and photograph it with my smartphone) such that either the merchant agrees to or would pass the "sniff test" when examined,  by authorities.   IMHO, The IOU must clearly signal intent to pay and <strong>provide a degree of financial accountability</strong> (i.e. credit card number + authorization for the charge): preferably with the agreement of the merchant in the form of the merchant writing the IOU.  A partial payment of cash in addition to the IOU could also serve as evidence of proper behavior.</p>

<p>In the end, <strong>the authorities would rather the customer-merchant work out a mutually acceptable arrangement</strong> and not involve the authorities.</p>

<p>Leaving contact details and demanding that an invoice will be sent should count as a reasonable intent to settle the billed amount.</p>

<p>In gastronomy, in case one is a regular guest, it is not that uncommon to have debts accumulated by consume paid later (even if this is far more common for beverages).</p>

<p>In such an exceptional situation, where eg. a sign claims CC would be accepted, while this payment gateway is temporarily not available, it should be possible to leave contact information and sign them a certificate of debt, to be payed as soon as technically or personally possible (when traveling, an invoice might be the only way).</p>

<p>In offline situations, one can pay with a signature... all "promissory notes", including bank notes and other signed certificates of debt, are generally a payment promise, often mistaken for "money" (BoE even confirmed that once). The only difference is, that banks are permitted to issue these without the declaration of an ultimatum.</p>

<p>Therefore, after making a reasonable payment promise, one is free to leave the venue. Demanding a bill, which states the outstanding amount, is certainly advised.</p>

<p>Even when "paying" with CC, one does not instantly pay, but one makes a debt contract with the one party and a payment promise to the other party... even if this may meanwhile be fulfilled close to realtime.</p>
