Depends. In the “low income” bracket Guys like certain criminals or prize winners, or who suddenly get a job or other means of coming in to money fast make up the great majority of lavish spenders of this sort. Followed closely by guys without responsibilities or bills, and “dollar ballers” who do stuff like this and then can’t pay bills. In the higher income bracket it’s a bit more mixed- but the overall top causes are loneliness, desire to show off, other insecurities of social issues. But meh. Capitalism. If you can afford to buy something and your finances are in order, if you enjoy it it isn’t idiocy except in the relative sense. There’s someone else in the world who would look at how each of us spends our money and wonder the same thing- “what kind of idiot would...” So that part is relative.
Yeah what a cunt for trying to not get wasted at work without upsetting a customer. Waitresses get customers like this a lot, you can't exactly expect them to drink all the time.
Yeah.... this is actually extremely common amongst bar tenders, wait staff, strippers, and others who work where liquor is served. It’s not even that uncommon for non bartenders. What does it matter what she was drinking? The guy didn’t want to drink alone, or wanted her to spend time with him. The only reason it would matter if she was drinking alchohol is if he had some intentions that he knew she likely wouldn’t go along with sober. As for taking his money... if someone offers why wouldn’t you? He’s an adult and if he decides that is the best use of his money who can say otherwise? Plus in many settings and cultures to refuse a drink with someone can be an insult.
"The only reason it would matter if she was drinking alchohol is if he had some intentions that he knew she likely wouldn’t go along with sober. " which could be the case so it is safe for her to do what she did. Some guys will not rest until you say yes to a drink so easier to play along and pretend you are drinking. Plus she was working. Or could be that he just wanted to be fun and to not drink alone. He clearly has the money to waste and no one forced him to.
I wasn’t advocating. I was implying that only if he was a creepy date rapist type or a sleaze would the fact she subbed water matter. That was my point, that you don’t need a woman to be drinking alchohol unless your intentions are foul, for social settings you at most would need the belief one was drinking alchohol to satisfy ones desire to not drink alone.
It looked like it, but I wanted to be sure to be clear on the point, reading the quote removed I didn’t like the possible ambiguity and should have written it better to start.
I think it was ok. I added that to show i was referring to that idea an the quotation marks so it was clear i was quoting you. I know quotation marks are used now more like a passive aggressive thing. But no.
It's illegal to accept shots... even though the person didn't specify shots of what? We could argue on the basis of this being immoral, but making this a legal case is just blowing it waaaaaay out of proportion.
Justify on what grounds? Even IF a court considers an offer to pay to drink shots a verbal contract- and IF those weren’t almost unenforceable- and IF the court doesn’t rule its a tip but constitutes a contract or employment situation- All the details we have on the verbal contract between them don’t stipulate what she’d drink- and if it was left to lady’s choice; she chose water. In most states it is illegal to drink on the job for bar staff anyway- so she has a legal obligation not to drink alchohol. IF he was charged for her shots as shots of alchohol- he has a case against the bar for a refund for the shot cost and possible legal penalties. But her, for what? If anyone with a few drinks in them could get money back for findin out their fantasy wasn’t reality- don’t you think people would have successfully sued strip clibs out of business by now?
"All the details we have on the verbal contract between them don’t stipulate what she’d drink"
The context is obvious, no judge would say "well technically she didn't say what she would would drink."
"IF he was charged for her shots as shots of alchohol- he has a case against the bar for a refund for the shot cost and possible legal penalties."
That's a possibility.
"If anyone with a few drinks in them could get money back for findin out their fantasy wasn’t reality- don’t you think people would have successfully sued strip clibs out of business by now? "
That's not the same thing and you know it.
If this is a contract case it’s really simple. It doesn’t matter if you intended for me to use factory glass on your phone repair. If I never said I’d use factory glass, you never specified factory glass, and you came back for 7 repairs the case is pretty much closed. But considering she was at work and where she works, and that customer interaction is part of the job- contract is unlikely verbal or otherwise. It’s likeky a tip, and tips are tips. Hence #3. Case closed. To the stripper analogy if she tells you it’ll be the “best dance of your life”, or she’ll “make you feel good” and afterwards you don’t- you don’t get a refund, MAYBE you could push for the fee back but not any tips. But to intent the first question of a judge would be “why does it need to be real alchohol?” The obvious answer is “to get her drunk.” A judge isn’t going to enforce that any more than if you buy a woman a drink at a club and she turns around and gives it to her boyfriend.
"If I never said I’d use factory glass, you never specified factory glass, and you came back for 7 repairs the case is pretty much closed."
No judge will ignore obvious context like the context in our scenario. This isn't the same.
"To the stripper analogy if she tells you it’ll be the “best dance of your life”, or she’ll “make you feel good” and afterwards you don’t- you don’t get a refund,"
That's puffing, receiving a specific amount of money isn't. Again, not the same thing.
The answer to "why does need to be real alcohol" is that, again, that's the obvious assumption given the context. No judge will believe that the lady wasn't aware of that expectation.
You keep pointing at an obvious assumption and a context- other than date rape (which judges aren’t super keen on) what is the obvious context? What is the purpose of their interaction. For him to be defrauded he needs to have a specific desire to get something from the interaction. What was he specifically wanting from the interaction that he did not get? In what way was the experience of taking shots with her changed by the contents of her glass? What damage did he suffer? For there to be a legal case there must be harm. Even if you consider this deceit- deceit is not a crime unless it causes harm. He went to a bar, he obviously was going to pay someone $700 to drink with him. He would be out $700 either way, so how was he harmed. Those are my questions. Specific questions you have yet to answer. Where is the crime?
"what is the obvious context?"
What a shot means in a bar.
"What is the purpose of their interaction."
To exchange the drinking of shots for money.
"What was he specifically wanting from the interaction that he did not get?"
For her to drink alcohol.
"In what way was the experience of taking shots with her changed by the contents of her glass?"
There was no alcohol in them.
"What damage did he suffer?"
Are you purposely making these questions more retarded as you go? $700
"He went to a bar, he obviously was going to pay someone $700 to drink with him."
Conjecture.
"He would be out $700 either way, so how was he harmed."
She didn't do what she was paid to do for the money he paid.
So your argument amounts to restating the information we already have, and expecting that the average person would “obviously” understand paying $700 to drink with someone? I’ve paid exactly $0 in my life to have someone drink with me, but maybe that’s a normal Friday for you? My argument is “conjecture” while your assumptions of his intent are fact? What we know is he paid a stranger $700 to drink with him. You fail to rebut why it had to be that stranger and why one wouldn’t assume he would have just paid another stranger. The harm isn’t the damages. We know that. It’s “obvious.” The harm is the mechanism of legal injury. What crime was committed? You fail to support your argument on anything but opinion. And FYI Phoenix Wright, a civil case is on preponderance of the evidence. It’s not a criminal case where one must prove intent beyond all doubt. Intent must simply be reasonably assumed. You have made no argument why he reasonably needed her to drink alchohol....
.... and anything either of us say is conjecture unless you are the guy in the story or at the very least interviewed him on the subject? You can’t even troll right man. Believe what you want, it’s your right to be wrong, but if you wanted to try and make a legal case of this you’d throw thousands of dollars and a boatload of time into a VERY slim chance you’d win. On a moral ground if our “conjecture” is he really cared what she drank and not just that she drank with him, we can say ethically she deceived him in some form. However deceit is not automatically fraud, and there is no argument that her actions changed his enjoyment of drinking shots with a woman, unless he intended that to lead somewhere else in which case she isn’t responsible for his expectations and that’s creep factor 11.
"My argument is “conjecture” while your assumptions of his intent are fact?"
Where is my conjecture?
"What we know is he paid a stranger $700 to drink with him."
To drink *alcohol* with him.
"You fail to rebut why it had to be that stranger and why one wouldn’t assume he would have just paid another stranger."
None of this is relevant because the contract was made with her,a nd not some other person.
"What crime was committed?"
Fraud.
"Intent must simply be reasonably assumed."
Yeah, like the reasonable assumption that he wanted her to drink alcohol, and the reasonable assumption that she purposefully defrauded him.
"deceit is not automatically fraud"
Yeah, it has to be for some sort of personal or financial gain. Like $700.
1. Nice try. I am not the one who are in here throwing around the word conjecture. I stated both our stances are conjecture unless you know him or are him. That was my rebuttal to you, so you ant rebut my rebuttal by rephrasing it.
2. Ok. Sure.
3. Ok. Sure.
4. Ok. Sure.
5. Ok. Sure.
I’m done. You’re either trolling, or I’m very sad for you. Either way I wish you the best in overcoming what’s put you in this place emotionally. That said- there’s no point in further discussion as you don’t have anything to say. You just repeat the same things over and over, and as this conversation shows you don’t actually read (or can’t conprehend) my replies. So as I said before- believe what you want. If you think your view is how the world works I would challenge you to go pay someone $700 to do shots with you and see how trying to get your money back goes. Regardless I’m done here. Enjoy the rest of your day.
"I stated both our stances are conjecture unless you know him or are him."
Be specific.
"I’m very sad for you."
It would be weird to be sad for me even if I was wrong.
"Either way I wish you the best in overcoming what’s put you in this place emotionally."
Not necessary, I feel pretty good.
"You just repeat the same things over and over"
Because you're not really addressing my points, and you obfuscate by trying to assert things like the possibility of paying someone else for the same service somehow precludes the enforcement of a contract with a specific person.
"believe what you want."
I will.
"I would challenge you to go pay someone $700 to do shots with you"
No, that would be silly.
"Enjoy the rest of your day."
Will do, esé.
The context is obvious, no judge would say "well technically she didn't say what she would would drink."
"IF he was charged for her shots as shots of alchohol- he has a case against the bar for a refund for the shot cost and possible legal penalties."
That's a possibility.
"If anyone with a few drinks in them could get money back for findin out their fantasy wasn’t reality- don’t you think people would have successfully sued strip clibs out of business by now? "
That's not the same thing and you know it.
No judge will ignore obvious context like the context in our scenario. This isn't the same.
"To the stripper analogy if she tells you it’ll be the “best dance of your life”, or she’ll “make you feel good” and afterwards you don’t- you don’t get a refund,"
That's puffing, receiving a specific amount of money isn't. Again, not the same thing.
The answer to "why does need to be real alcohol" is that, again, that's the obvious assumption given the context. No judge will believe that the lady wasn't aware of that expectation.
What a shot means in a bar.
"What is the purpose of their interaction."
To exchange the drinking of shots for money.
"What was he specifically wanting from the interaction that he did not get?"
For her to drink alcohol.
"In what way was the experience of taking shots with her changed by the contents of her glass?"
There was no alcohol in them.
"What damage did he suffer?"
Are you purposely making these questions more retarded as you go? $700
"He went to a bar, he obviously was going to pay someone $700 to drink with him."
Conjecture.
"He would be out $700 either way, so how was he harmed."
She didn't do what she was paid to do for the money he paid.
Where is my conjecture?
"What we know is he paid a stranger $700 to drink with him."
To drink *alcohol* with him.
"You fail to rebut why it had to be that stranger and why one wouldn’t assume he would have just paid another stranger."
None of this is relevant because the contract was made with her,a nd not some other person.
"What crime was committed?"
Fraud.
"Intent must simply be reasonably assumed."
Yeah, like the reasonable assumption that he wanted her to drink alcohol, and the reasonable assumption that she purposefully defrauded him.
"deceit is not automatically fraud"
Yeah, it has to be for some sort of personal or financial gain. Like $700.
2. Ok. Sure.
3. Ok. Sure.
4. Ok. Sure.
5. Ok. Sure.
I’m done. You’re either trolling, or I’m very sad for you. Either way I wish you the best in overcoming what’s put you in this place emotionally. That said- there’s no point in further discussion as you don’t have anything to say. You just repeat the same things over and over, and as this conversation shows you don’t actually read (or can’t conprehend) my replies. So as I said before- believe what you want. If you think your view is how the world works I would challenge you to go pay someone $700 to do shots with you and see how trying to get your money back goes. Regardless I’m done here. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Be specific.
"I’m very sad for you."
It would be weird to be sad for me even if I was wrong.
"Either way I wish you the best in overcoming what’s put you in this place emotionally."
Not necessary, I feel pretty good.
"You just repeat the same things over and over"
Because you're not really addressing my points, and you obfuscate by trying to assert things like the possibility of paying someone else for the same service somehow precludes the enforcement of a contract with a specific person.
"believe what you want."
I will.
"I would challenge you to go pay someone $700 to do shots with you"
No, that would be silly.
"Enjoy the rest of your day."
Will do, esé.