contract-law restaurants
What specific laws govern ownership of food in restaurants, and any terms or obligations under which a person can have, take, or eat it?
<p>This question partially builds off of some of the ideas in here: <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/5100/what-terms-surround-a-restaurant-order">What terms surround a restaurant order?</a></p>
<p>But my question is more specifically:</p>
<ul>
<li>is food in a restaurant considered “property”, owned by the legal entity that is the restaurant? Does it have identical ownership status or attributes as any other kind of ownership, such as owning a car, housing, clothing, computer, etc.?</li>
<li>The answer above talks about contract law, specifically regarding verbal contracts. I was wondering what exact law and passages of that law specify the terms of the contract, when you buy food in some establishment. Does anyone know the exact conditions or criteria regarding it, like, at what point does the intention to buy food become a contract? What are its requirements?</li>
<li>I am specifically most interested in the idea of walking into a cafe and eating food from a glass display case without paying for it; what relevant conditions could influence the legality. For example, what if the person working there never significantly protests you doing so? To what extent can verbal contracts be implicit, like it possibly seemed that the person working there gave you approval? Also, if food is property, what is the penalty for theft of something worth $2-$5?</li>
</ul>

<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>is food in a restaurant considered “property”, owned by the legal entity that is the restaurant? Does it have identical ownership status or attributes as any other kind of ownership, such as owning a car, housing, clothing, computer, etc.?</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>The Restaurant as an entity owns the food, it is property. The Restaurant is represented by its employees (agents). It is the very same type of ownership as the Restaurant has of its utensils and tools.</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>The answer above talks about contract law, specifically regarding verbal contracts. I was wondering what exact law and passages of that law specify the terms of the contract, when you buy food in some establishment. Does anyone know the exact conditions or criteria regarding it, like, at what point does the intention to buy food become a contract? What are its requirements?</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>The order is a contract that the Customer will pay the Restaurant for the items they tell the waiter. That is a verbal contract between the Customer and the Restaurant. Which exact law from the massive body of law that is <a href="/questions/tagged/contract-law" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;contract-law&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;contract-law&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-contract-law-tooltip-container">contract-law</a> applies varies a lot by jurisdiction.</p>
<p>The contract is formed by the <em>meeting of the minds</em>. For example, the Customer states &quot;I want that cheesecake from the menu&quot; (advertised for some price), and the waiter as a representative of the Restaurant informs him he can have it. At that moment, the contract is binding for both parties.</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>I am specifically most interested in the idea of walking into a cafe and eating food from a glass display case without paying for it; what relevant conditions could influence the legality. For example, what if the person working there never significantly protests you doing so? To what extent can verbal contracts be implicit, like it possibly seemed that the person working there gave you approval? Also, if food is property, what is the penalty for theft of something worth $2-$5?</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>That is super simple: without ordering, or paying when told to do so by employees, you commit <strong>theft</strong> (or it's variant <em>petty theft</em>). That is a criminal act, in which you deprive the Restaurant of its property. The restaurant also can sue you for <strong>conversion</strong> of the value, because you did not pay.</p>
<p>The non-protest of the Restaurant employee does not alter the picture, it's still theft and conversion. Inaction is not approval.</p>
<p>Incidentally, the punishment for stealing a low-value item might be much higher than the item's value: I was told by a german lawyer, that he had once been told of a case in which a notorious thief had just gotten out of a hearing if he should be put in jail for repeatedly stealing small items. He had begged for mercy and was allowed to go on probation. Just after he left the courthouse he crossed the street and stole chewing gum from a shop located there and was busted by a cop. The value of the chewing gum was about 1 euro, but he was given a multiple-year jail time for violation of probation and theft - which is equivalent to at least a 4-digit number fine.</p>
