Well legally they have to give money back in a situation like that.
Revelation34 posted...
It would be considered theft if they didn't give the money back.
Not 100% sure that either is really the case. Accepting returns is usually somewhat discretionary in most businesses and the nature of the food service industry further adds to those conditions. If they gave them money and got nothing in return, then sure, that's theft.
In this case, they purchased and received a product then tried to give it back and apparently said something along the lines of "I don't want it" (with one of her friends suggesting that it be thrown out). As soon as she handed the product back and said "I don't want it," that can be reasonably construed as ceding ownership. That doesn't create a legal obligation to give back money.
The grey area here depends on the nature of the complaint. If they received a completely different order (ie, a salad instead of a hamburger), they didn't get what they paid for (and it's doubly an issue if what they received was cheaper than what they ordered). If it's not done to spec or otherwise has an error, that's not theft (ie, a criminal matter), that's a civil matter. Given the context of the story, it's more likely a matter of things not being done to spec.
This isn't returns. They threw the food out. They never received the product.
They did get their money back though and then were refused service which they're allowed to do. ---