Posted on 04/23/2004 8:08:56 PM PDT by nuconvert
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.
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.
Appetite suppresent and a compelling argument for abortion.
Way to go.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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?
My specific "worth it?" question dealt with an insurance company, not a restaurant.
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.