Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No-Carb Eating Couple Booted From Buffet for Eating Too Much Beef (Chuck-A-Rama incident)
AP ^ | april 23,2004

Posted on 04/23/2004 8:08:56 PM PDT by nuconvert

No-Carb Eating Couple Booted From Buffet for Eating Too Much Beef

Apr 23, 2004

The Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A couple on a low-carb diet were kicked out of a buffet restaurant after the manager said they'd eaten too much roast beef. Sui Amaama, who along with his wife have been on the Atkins Diet for two weeks, was "It's so embarrassing actually," said Isabelle Leota, Amaama's wife. "We went in to have dinner, we were under the impression Chuck-A-Rama was an all-you-can-eat establishment."

Not so, said Jack Johanson, the restaurant chain's district manager.

"We've never claimed to be an all-you-can-eat establishment," said Johanson. "Our understanding is a buffet is just a style of eating."

The general manager who was carving the meat Tuesday became concerned about having enough for other patrons and asked Amaama to stop, Johanson said.

Offended, the couple asked for a refund. The manager refused and called police when they would not leave.

The couple said they have eaten at Chuck-A-Rama's $8.99 buffet at least twice a week, but did not plan to return.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: atkins; atkinsdiet; beef; chuckarama; diet; gulla; lowcarb; nocarb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 last
To: Cultural Jihad
From the article, it seems like the manager asked the couple to cease their demands for unpaid food...

What "unpaid food"? Didn't the couple pay the restaurant $17.98?

In the absense of a policy stated otherwise, those who pay for a buffet are generally buying the privilege of having as much or as little food as they care to eat, taken in as many or as few trips as they care to make.

Although restaurants have significant fixed costs and staffing costs, the marginal profit margins on food are usually pretty huge. Even if the net prepared cost of the beef was $5.00/lb (and I doubt it would be that much, since restaurants buy meat wholesale), and even if the slices were 3oz each (which is larger than I'd expect buffet slices to be), twelve slices of beef would still only cost $11.25; I don't know how much the wife ate, but it seems likely that the two of them together cost the restaurant less than $17.98 they paid to eat there.

Further, even if the food they ate cost the restaurant more than $17.98, that would still not justify saying they were eating "unpaid food". After all, if a AAA member's car needs to be towed twice in the course of a year, would you consider the second tow "unpaid service" since the two tows together probably cost more than $52? Whether the dieting couple or the restaurant can claim to be the defrauded party is up to a court of law to decide.

I wasn't present, but I would tend to side with the couple unless there was some clear signage which indicated that the restaurant had the right to restrict the quantities of food people took. The couple likely would not have spent $17.98 to eat there if they'd realized they would not have as much meat as they wanted. The restaurant could have posted signage making its policies clear, but failed to do so.

121 posted on 04/27/2004 6:04:23 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: bluefish
Sui Amaama, who along with his wife have been on the Atkins Diet for two weeks, was asked to leave after he went up to the buffet at the Chuck-A-Rama in suburban Taylorsville for his 12th slice of roast beef.

Stupid restaurant. Stupid couple too. They obviously haven't read Dr. Atkin's book.

Depends upon the size of the slices. I've seen restaurant slices anywhere from probably 0.5oz to 3oz. If the man had twelve 0.5oz slices, that would seem entirely reasonable (6oz of meat). If it was twelve 3oz slices, that would seem excessive (over 2lbs of meat). Without knowing the size of the slices, it's impossible to know what would be excessive.

122 posted on 04/27/2004 6:07:11 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething

123 posted on 04/27/2004 6:12:06 PM PDT by reagan_fanatic (So you're a feminist - isn't that cute!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Redcoat LI

Appetite suppresent and a compelling argument for abortion.

Way to go.

124 posted on 04/27/2004 6:13:35 PM PDT by Thumper1960 (Is it really a coincidence that Demoncrats and the Devil start with a "D"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Depends upon the size of the slices. I've seen restaurant slices anywhere from probably 0.5oz to 3oz. If the man had twelve 0.5oz slices, that would seem entirely reasonable (6oz of meat). If it was twelve 3oz slices, that would seem excessive (over 2lbs of meat). Without knowing the size of the slices, it's impossible to know what would be excessive.

You are correct, of course. I did see them with their lawyer on TV the next morning. I wasn't paying much attention, but the lawyer seemed to be saying something to the effect that your "small slice" scenario was in play.

Interesting side note.. The lawyer himself looked like he needed to go on the Atkins diet. He looked like your typical movie version of the small time loser lawyer, making it with a high profile case. All sweaty and nervous.

I will retract my "they must not have read the actual book" statement. However, I still say stupid customer. Going on national TV over getting booted from a restaurant for eating too much roast beef (whether it was truly too much or not). Trying to hit the lottery (no doubt encouraged by the greasy lawyer). How embarrassing and what a waste of time. And stupid restaurant. Bet they feel pretty stupid right now too. Then again, maybe it is good publicity for them in the end.

125 posted on 04/27/2004 9:06:36 PM PDT by bluefish (Disclaimer for Pukin: I do not believe Freepers should die for arguing with me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
heh heh.. thought I was the only one that remembered that routine. Louie Anderson as a stand-up comic, pre-hollywood squares or family feud or whatever he ended up hosting.
126 posted on 04/27/2004 9:11:45 PM PDT by bluefish (Disclaimer for Pukin: I do not believe Freepers should die for arguing with me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bluefish
Going on national TV over getting booted from a restaurant for eating too much roast beef (whether it was truly too much or not). Trying to hit the lottery (no doubt encouraged by the greasy lawyer).

If I were a judge, I would award the couple $17.98, plus sales tax if applicable. If I were a small-claims judge hearing this case, I would make the defendants pay applicable court costs ($25-$50 or whatever). If I were a 'big' court judge hearing this case, I would politely suggest to the plaintiffs that they should have brought the case in small claims so as not to have to give $5.99 to their lawyer.

127 posted on 04/27/2004 9:19:07 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
"It's so embarrassing actually,"

Yes I imagine that being called on being a big fat 12 slices of roast beef eater is embarassing.

And I've never heard of Chuck-A-Rama before. But a place with a name like that couldn't possibly be bad.

128 posted on 04/27/2004 9:42:19 PM PDT by MattAMiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat

Conjecture and speculation not based upon known facts.

129 posted on 04/27/2004 9:44:24 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad (x = x + 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Conjecture and speculation not based upon known facts.

That the restaurant could have posted such a policy would seem obvious. That it did not is a conclusion based upon the fact that the manager said "Our understanding is a buffet is just a style of eating," rather than something like, "As we note on our sign, we reserve the right to limit servings."

130 posted on 04/27/2004 9:54:05 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: supercat

Perhaps, and perhaps not. No one should assume a news article is going to be truthful, full, complete, or impartial.

But even so, in human contract law there's a term they use, 'a meeting of the minds.' Assuming neither side was out to defraud the other, there are instances when justice declares that each side failed to meet the standards of a contractual agreement. Making a public scene to the point of eviction by Constitutional officers is the antics of freeloaders, blackmailers, and extortionists. But we all know how evil those businessmen are and how they deserve to be smacked down and taken advantage of if anyone artful enough can get away with it, eh?

131 posted on 04/27/2004 10:11:04 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad (x = x + 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
But even so, in human contract law there's a term they use, 'a meeting of the minds.'

Exactly, which is why I would not charge the restaurant anything beyond the price of the meal. I see no evidence of intent to defraud, but nonetheless the restaurant failed to provide what the customer reasonably believed he was paying for. While one might reasonably quibble over whether the couple deserved a full refund for the cost of their meal, I would be inclined to give them one on the basis that (1) a restaurant is supposed to not only provide food, but attempt to provide the customers enjoyment; it appears that the restaurant failed to do the latter; (2) even if the customer deserves less than a full refund (e.g. if they ate 80% as much as they should have expected to eat, they might deserve a 20% refund) quibbling too much over less than $20 seems silly; (3) it is the restaurant's job to satisfy customers, not the customers' job to satisfy a restaurant.

I am reminded of a story told me by the man who prepared my wife's grave marker. One of his clients had his wife's grave marker destroyed by vandals about 10 years after it was installed. The client's insurance company asked him what the expected useful lifetime of a gravemarker was and he replied about 200 years. The insurance company thus decided to write the client a check for 95% of the cost of replacing the grave marker.

That decision may have saved the insurance company an immediate $50 or so, but it cost them the business of a previously-loyal custoemr. Worth it?

132 posted on 04/27/2004 10:51:24 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Worth it? That would be up to the individual customer to decide whether they like the way a reasonable business is run as opposed to anywhere else. Large corporations can absorb the freeloaderism and professional irate customers who come to plunder. Many family-run restaurants operate on slim margins, not to say that one or two gluttonous freeloaders would impoverish them in one sitting, but that decision is entirely the proprietors' to make in a Free Republic.
133 posted on 04/27/2004 11:39:52 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad (x = x + 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Worth it? That would be up to the individual customer to decide whether they like the way a reasonable business is run as opposed to anywhere else. Large corporations can absorb the freeloaderism and professional irate customers who come to plunder. Many family-run restaurants operate on slim margins, not to say that one or two gluttonous freeloaders would impoverish them in one sitting, but that decision is entirely the proprietors' to make in a Free Republic.

My specific "worth it?" question dealt with an insurance company, not a restaurant.

134 posted on 04/28/2004 9:46:06 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson