Robert_81
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
In tort law, how would you classify a "dine and dash" at a restaurant? That is, if you leave a restaurant without paying. Would this be interference with chattels? Conversion possibly?

Thank you!!
0
reply
Bupdeeboowah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
(Original post by Robert_81)
In tort law, how would you classify a "dine and dash" at a restaurant? That is, if you leave a restaurant without paying. Would this be interference with chattels? Conversion possibly?

Thank you!!
I think you'd be better under a claim for a breach of contract.

But if you really had to use a tort, I'd say it would be conversion because the very fact of eating would destroy the food and would thus be an intentional interference with the restaurant owner's possessory/proprietary rights to the extent that the restaurant owner is excluded from the food's use/possession.
0
reply
kka25
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
I was actually going to say breach of contract as well since upon entering the premise, assuming there's a written T&C somewhere you could see (or orally mentioned), which you've agreed to abide, you've essentially breached the agreement between the establishment and yourself.

But since this is tort, then the above may not be applicable.
0
reply
Nolofinwë
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by Robert_81)
In tort law, how would you classify a "dine and dash" at a restaurant? That is, if you leave a restaurant without paying. Would this be interference with chattels? Conversion possibly?

Thank you!!
To echo the others, I'd be looking for a contract first.

However, if you have to deal with this in tort, I'd suggest the following. I cannot see how this could be a conversion/trespass to goods, because the restaurant delivered the food to the customer. Since they did not know of his intentions, they must presumably have intended to pass title. Therefore, while there might be grounds in unjust enrichment, there cannot be in tort, because the customer did not interfere with goods belonging another person. I say this subject to the (horribly flawed) right to revest exclusive possession, but I do not see how that could apply, because the food was destroyed before the restaurant knew what was going to happen, and hence before they could avoid the transfer.

I think the strongest claim is in deceit. However, that tort has some quite specific ingredients, so it would be a matter for the facts. If not, a second idea (which I find more than a little entertaining, and in law incredibly doubtful) would be to latch onto Lord Mance's speeches in OBG v Allen and Total v Revenue and Customers Commissioners and try to argue that his actions amounted to criminal wrongdoing (possibly fraud), and that this must be classed as two-party causing loss by unlawful means.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (93)
5%
Uncertainty around my education (281)
15.1%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (198)
10.64%
Lack of purpose or motivation (262)
14.08%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (82)
4.41%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (107)
5.75%
Loneliness (162)
8.7%
Financial worries (66)
3.55%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (81)
4.35%
Exposure to negative news/social media (88)
4.73%
Lack of real life entertainment (102)
5.48%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (164)
8.81%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (175)
9.4%

Watched Threads

View All