Who has to pay restaurant bill

Question

Based on a story from another site: It’s A’s birthday. A’s mum invites mum, dad, A and A’s brother B to a meal in an expensive restaurant. At the end, mum gets the bill, pays money, and mum, dad and brother B leave.

A wants to leave but mum didn’t pay the complete bill: She didn’t pay for B’s meal and didn’t pay a tip which is maybe legal but very rude. So A is stopped from leaving the restaurant.

Question: Is the restaurant entitled to ask any member of the group to pay (and since A is the only one still present they demand money from A)? If A explains the situation and the restaurant owner is sympathetic, would he be entitled to ask for payment from mum instead (who isn’t there anymore, but A can provide name, address and phone number)?

Answer 1

Who entered the contract with the restaurant?

In order for the restaurant to collect from a person, that person must have entered into a contract for the meal. That is, from the restaurant's point of view, they must have indicated that they would like some food and, since everyone knows how restaurants work, they know that the food will have to be paid for.

Whether a given person entered a contract will depend on the specific facts. If they opened their mouth and said to the waiter something like “I’ll have the chicken”, they almost certainly entered a contract and they are obliged to pay. This is even if they had an expectation that someone else would pay for them - the restaurant is not involved in any other contracts or arrangements you might have with third-parties. You ordered, you’re on the hook.

In a situation where you didn’t order, the answer is still probably yes, you have to pay. Again, because you know how restaurants work, by eating the meal that was placed in front of you rather than saying, “Just so you know, your contract for this meal is with that guy over there, is that okay?”, you probably entered a contract by your action of eating the meal.

More broadly, when a group collectively enters a contract with the restaurant, they are probably agreeing with the restaurant that they will be jointly and severally bound. That is, each is responsible for all and the restaurant can pursue any or all of the people they have a contract with.

A minor dining with their parents is probably not entering a contract with the restaurant. Not because minors can’t enter contracts (they absolutely can) but because of the normal expectation that the parent is entering the contract.

This is because of a principle that contract terms may be implied by custom. That is, if there is a general understanding that this is the way things are done, then that will be something the law will enforce. This is a simple expedient adopted in order to make the world work - if every term of every contract had to be explicitly detailed in advance this would be a) unworkable and b) impossible.

Even if there is no contract, the restaurant has equitable remedies like unjust enrichment. The diner has had the benefit of the meal and it would be unjust if the restaurant was left out of pocket. Equitable remedies can be even more complicated than contract law so we’ll just leave it at that.

As for whether the restaurant will accept a promise from one diner that another will pay, that’s up to them.

Answer 2

In Washington state, the server, cashier or owner are legally allowed to make a request for payment, and they can make it of anyone. They are not legally allowed to physically prevent any part from departing. Under the circumstances, it seems that someone has violated RCW 9A.56.050, so the establishment could call the police, but since the police did not witness the misdemeanor, they would only file a report and leave it to the DA to prosecute or not.

It this was a walk-in event without a reservation, the person who requested the table is most likely to get stuck for the bill. If mother volunteered to pay a part of the bill but A requested the table, the contractual obligation is between A and the restaurant – unless it was clear up front that there would be separate checks.