Why is refusal to pay bills or rent considered a civil matter, while refusal to pay a restautant bill considered criminal? What's the difference?
Both utility bills and restaurant bills are demands to satisfy a debt after the service have been rendered. And in cases of rental properties, it's refusal to pay even before the service (the legal right to reside in the property) is rendered, since most leases require paying on the first of the month. Why shouldn't they all just be considered either all civil or all criminal. I don't understand the inconsistency in legislation.
Laws are inconsistent and don't always make sense. My guess is they consider someone who actively chooses to go into a restaurant with the intention of not paying is more of a thief. Everyone needs a place to live (homelessness is de facto illegal in many respects) and failure to pay your rent or mortgage seems both more sympathetic (on the surface at least) and passive, because it may be due to circumstances beyond your control (loss of income, health problems, etc).
I could have to do with the transfer of property vs. services. When you don't pay at a restaurant you're stealing property (food). Rent is a service, the landlord doesn't lose property if you don't pay rent.
Utility bills and rent and such are also contract disputes, there's no contract involved with a restaurant.
Or its down to intent. If it could be proven that you had no intention to pay a bill, that's probably criminal fraud. Conversely, if you're at a restaurant, refuse to pay and argue that service was inadequete, that'd be a civil issue.
Not a lawyer, but public utilities operate under civil oversight, usually a state or.county board of public utilities. The matters are civil in party because public utilities are usually necessities-- heat during cold snaps, water and power during heat waves, etc. The utilities are obligated to provide the product, and receive special benefits for access to market with provisos that they can't just shut people off without due process. The "elderly lady on a pension" scenario. The public utilities can generally also write off losses.
Restaurants are entirely a luxury venture, where walking out of a bill amounts to theft of goods and services. You don't need to eat out to survive.
@chatgpt@lemmings.world Why is refusal to pay bills or rent considered a civil matter, while refusal to pay a restaurant bill is considered a criminal matter? Why shouldn't they all just be considered either all civil or all criminal?
The difference lies mainly in the nature of the obligations and typically how immediate the effects are. Rent and most bills are based on a contractual agreement that sets the terms for payment. Therefore, failure to meet these obligations is usually considered a matter of civil law because it involves breach of contract, where the aggrieved party can seek damages.
On the other hand, refusing to pay for a meal at a restaurant after consuming it could be considered theft of services or fraud because there isn't a deferred payment agreement. This can fall under criminal law since it's an immediate and deliberate act to obtain something without paying. This distinction is important because criminal offenses typically carry harsher penalties and have more severe consequences for future aspects, such as employment.
However, laws differ widely and could potentially treat these scenarios differently based on specific circumstances and jurisdictions. It's always recommended to consult a law professional for advice regarding specific situations.
No big business utilities? PG&E is worth $35 billion. Duke Energy is close to $70 billion. The list goes on. These are fortune 500 companies that employ small towns worth of people.