That's a good point, but there could be a lot of reasons why he didn't return the purse immediately. He was inebriated to the point of blacking out. Maybe he did not remember taking the purse, or did not remember from where he stole the purse. Maybe the purse did not contain anything (i.e...
Cool read. So "buddy" should still be charged with theft because he only reached the second level of intoxication. I still believe, however, that the bar should also be charged with over-serving.
Why else would a bartender take $1000 to work?
What if my bike was stolen, but the thief returns...
Can you please explain further?
HTA 172 aside, what ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty." How do you know if the bartender is taking advantage of the situation?
A possible argument might ask why "buddy" stole the purse in the first place? Is it because he has a history of theft...
The whole situation is pretty ironic, I must admit, but the bar is still guilty of s. 20 (1) and in s. 39, there is no definition of relationship of another person or property of another person. As it is written, the bartender is, in fact, another person. But I'm no lawyer.
This may be true for restaurants, but not bars or clubs, especially those in downtown Toronto or Montreal. I always open tabs with my credit card. I watch where server places my card. Sometimes its in her bra, but most of the time, it's in a cup with my ID next to the cash. I'm always only one...
Though you gotta ask yourself: if he wasn't inebriated to the point of blacking out, would he have stolen the purse and the possible money within?
Plus, if this $1000 was from tips, he could request to see the account records for that day to see if the bar actually came up short. Wouldn't it be...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.