It is kind of weird when you think about it. Either way, it's breach of contract.
If someone robs a house, but then leaves a rubby ducky and an invoice saying "1 Rubber Ducky - Cost 1 house's contents", is it now only a civil court affair since it's just contract law?
The contract is the bill, the receipt. Prior to receipt of the bill, no contract is yet formed. Socially we "accept" that the contract exists, but it does not in the strictest sense. "I would like a cheeseburger" is not a declaration of intent to enter a contractual exchange for a specific value, it is just declaring a personal desire. This is voided if you have done so before, as then there is an expectation of continued contractual interaction.
This may seem counter-intuitive, but counter-intuitiveness is how lawyers make their money.
It is kind of weird when you think about it. Either way, it's breach of contract.
If someone robs a house, but then leaves a rubby ducky and an invoice saying "1 Rubber Ducky - Cost 1 house's contents", is it now only a civil court affair since it's just contract law?
You can't have a contract if both parties don't agree to it. That wouldn't even make it to court on those grounds.
A dine-and-dasher or a shortchanger doesn't agree to the contract, either.
What are you talking about? When you order food you're agreeing to pay for it. When you don't, you're breaking the contract.
When someone breaks into your house and then leaves a note after the fact you're not agreeing to anything.
The contract is the bill, the receipt. Prior to receipt of the bill, no contract is yet formed. Socially we "accept" that the contract exists, but it does not in the strictest sense. "I would like a cheeseburger" is not a declaration of intent to enter a contractual exchange for a specific value, it is just declaring a personal desire. This is voided if you have done so before, as then there is an expectation of continued contractual interaction.
This may seem counter-intuitive, but counter-intuitiveness is how lawyers make their money.