If you tell them you tendered payment in accordance with the law and the restaurant owner has involved them in a civil dispute over the form of the tender of payment. Im sure they'll be like "yeah, we dont arrest people over contract disputes because it wastes our very valuable time and we get lawsuits for wrongful improsonment at best and criminal charges against us at worst".
Sometimes they might be like "The signpost says you agree to pay by card" and you'd be like "If it's an agreement then it must be a civil matter and anyway the signpost is a lie they are required by law to receive payment in cash of the right denomination so I've paid just now when I offered cash as per the relevant statutes. They have gifted the cash back to me by saying they wont take it in the way the statute describes they may if and only if they wish to gift it to me". Then the police have a tough job saying you stile anything especially since the statutes say the situation is that you were gifted the money back or gifted the services after a successful payment. How could you steal something that was gifted to you or that you have paid for and were gifted back the money.
Why would the police disregard statutes regarding tendering of payment for debts which allow you to do this? The requirement to pay a debt without cash isnt agreed even if there's a signpost so you haven't stolen anything.
No. If you presented the cash the judge would order that you had tendered payment as per the statutes and that the restaurant had gifted the cash back to you.
I'd be tempted to tender payment for my debt in any form that the law of the land states is a legal tender. If the restaurant refuses then my debt is already paid and the refused money is returned to me as a gift. This is true regardless of any signposts in the restaurant or of any false legal advice given by the waiting staff or manager.
Slashdot Mirror
If you tell them you tendered payment in accordance with the law and the restaurant owner has involved them in a civil dispute over the form of the tender of payment. Im sure they'll be like "yeah, we dont arrest people over contract disputes because it wastes our very valuable time and we get lawsuits for wrongful improsonment at best and criminal charges against us at worst". Sometimes they might be like "The signpost says you agree to pay by card" and you'd be like "If it's an agreement then it must be a civil matter and anyway the signpost is a lie they are required by law to receive payment in cash of the right denomination so I've paid just now when I offered cash as per the relevant statutes. They have gifted the cash back to me by saying they wont take it in the way the statute describes they may if and only if they wish to gift it to me". Then the police have a tough job saying you stile anything especially since the statutes say the situation is that you were gifted the money back or gifted the services after a successful payment. How could you steal something that was gifted to you or that you have paid for and were gifted back the money.
Why would the police disregard statutes regarding tendering of payment for debts which allow you to do this? The requirement to pay a debt without cash isnt agreed even if there's a signpost so you haven't stolen anything.
No. If you presented the cash the judge would order that you had tendered payment as per the statutes and that the restaurant had gifted the cash back to you.
You mean the courts will disregard statutes regarding payment of debts?
I'd be tempted to tender payment for my debt in any form that the law of the land states is a legal tender. If the restaurant refuses then my debt is already paid and the refused money is returned to me as a gift. This is true regardless of any signposts in the restaurant or of any false legal advice given by the waiting staff or manager.