Not Quite All-You-Can-Eat in Brighton
In the news this week, we read of a Mongolian restaurant in Brighton which has banned a pair of enthusiastic regular customers for taking its offer of ‘all-you-can-eat’ too literally.
I’m no expert on the relevant legislation but would start from a point that the ‘offer’ was clear, a ‘consideration’ was tendered and that, therefore, a contract should exist. Any trader indeed has a basic right to decline to do business with any particular customer (providing he is not doing so on grounds of race, gender etc) but when such a clear public offer is made, surely the customer should reasonably expect it to be honoured ?
When a trader creates such a blanket offer, he should have taken into account that, among the general public attending, he would expect to get a varied mix of the gluttons and the virtually anorexic, accepting that the balance would still leave him in front on the deal. If not, he just puts up the standard blanket price to achieve that end.
Some close friends of mine own a very popular Asian restaurant in these parts, where an all-you-can-eat buffet system operates. They accept the varied mix of customer types, supplying whatever volume of tasty food is required to satisfy the customers’ needs without question and, at the end of the year, they record a tidy profit. They never express concern about the occasional gluttons, positively accepting them as a natural part of the mix – if such food enthusiasts like your food, it’s a good recommendation.
What really annoys my pals, however, is when customers load up their plates with food, then leave much it uneaten – that inappropriate use of the open buffet system really winds them up. There’s nothing stopping customers revisiting the buffet as often as they like, gathering freshly-cooked food each time, regardless of total volume, so why they insist on collecting far more than they can eat and creating waste remains both a mystery and a commercial annoyance. They note that it is almost always their Asian customers who do this, the Western types tend to leave very little for the scrap-bin.
Although not a glutton myself (and with a Mrs Mudplugger who significantly increases her impact on the weighing-scales when wet through), I would not give my custom to a business which reneged on a public offering such as the Brighton Mongolian appears to have done. If their business integrity is so delicate, what might it say about the qualities of the source ingredients ?
Perhaps our landlady should start an ‘all-you-can-drink’ offer at the Raccoon Arms – that would soon sort the men from the boys.
Edited to add:
OK, I’ll bite – ‘all you can drink’ until tomorrow morning when the landlady will be back with a vengeance to see who is still standing…regards, Anna
December 30, 2012 at 23:49
-
# Surely the answer is that once admitted a contract is implicit and they
are allowed to stay #
Surely the answer is Mongoliosodium Glutamate?
- December 31, 2012 at 01:26
-
yes i agree once admitted – but what about the next time they come back
before admittance – can the restauranteur ban them then from entering?
- December 31, 2012 at
05:57
-
A restaurant is licenced premesis, so yes. And they do not NEED to give
a reason.
-
December 28, 2012 at 19:54
-
I doubt anywhere would have to chuck me out because I hadn’t finished every
scrap on my 19th plate.
- December 28, 2012 at 19:37
-
Surely the answer is that once admitted a contract is implicit and they are
allowed to stay. However the restaraunt would be within its rights to ban
future visits!
- December 28, 2012 at 02:20
-
I believe the situation with the two Gluttons to be as follows:
If they have been accepted into the premises and been allowed to start
eating – a implied contract has been formed through acceptance of terms on the
part of both parties, and the Gluttons should not be asked to leave or banned
during this sitting (not through quantity of food eaten anyway), they should
be allowed to finish under the terms of the agreement.
However the restaurant owner is perfectly within his rights to ban them
from any future sittings for whatever reason he sees fit, including the fact
that they may eat too much, as this would be the formation of a new contract,
which requires as all contracts should – the voluntary agreement of both
parties. In other words the restauranteur can refuse to accept the Gluttons
offer of entering into future contracts for any further sittings, just as the
Gluttons could equally refuse to visit the restaurant again.
- December 28, 2012 at 04:42
-
XX including the fact that they may eat too much, XX
Difficult to prove with the wording of the offer “As much as you can
eat.”
Too open ended.
We have a chinese/Vietnamese Imbiss (Snack bar) here. Buffet style.
But their “offer” is, “You can take as much as you like for €X. BUT, if
the staff consider that you are taking the proverbials, they reserve the
right to make a surcharge.”
THAT is so written. Therfore enforceable. The way I understand the
British case, here, is that no such “understanding” exists.
Therefore to ban some one for “eating too much” is unequitable.
- December 28, 2012 at 11:14
-
But surely (and I am talking hypothetically in a truly free society
that respects private property and contract law), the restauranteur has
not contracted under my second scenario above when they have not yet
entered the restaurant, and he could refuse them entry to his premises for
any reason from the reasonable to the absurd, as it is his property.
- December 28, 2012 at
16:21
-
Yes. but the story about the people banned here, is that they entered
the premeses, actualy TOOK the food, and the restaraunt took the
money.
Therfore as I see it, it is a completed contract.
Of course they can be refused entry. Because of many things…. I don’t
know…”They have not had a bath for six months, and stink”. Or “They are
totaly pissed”. “He kicked my cat!”. Whatever.
But NOT on the grounds “they eat too much”, when the offer is “to eat
AS MUCH AS YOU WANT”
- December 28, 2012 at 17:24
-
“But NOT on the grounds “they eat too much”, when the offer is “to
eat AS MUCH AS YOU WANT”.
I disagree. Latent terms, such as reasonable conduct and causing no
offense to other diners, are implicit and within the contract. ‘Animal
behaviour’ is under sufferance of the restaurateur, who may eject
swine for reasons legitimately maintained as being other than ‘eating
too much’.
- December 28, 2012 at
20:26
-
Aye Melvin, I think you will find I DID mention that.
XX Of course they can be refused entry. Because of many things…. I
don’t know…”They have not had a bath for six months, and stink”. Or
“They are totaly pissed”. “He kicked my cat!”. Whatever. XX
Have a bloody good new year, by the way! I look foreward to
crossing swords throughout 2013.
-
December 27, 2012 at 23:49
-
Would not a large angry asian cook trump any legal nit pickings.
- December 28, 2012 at 04:34
-
If you can FIND a “large Asian” certainly.
FAT does not equal “large.”
ALTHOUGH(!) recently we have had an influx of Chinese from North China
here, and in height, they are a good match for the locals, when not
TALLER!
- December 27, 2012 at 19:36
-
These seemingly attractive offers are best avoided. Recipes to dehydrate
the customer will swing the deal in the restaurateur’s favour. The food is
often inferior and laced with sodium/spices to mask taste and induce a raging
thirst. Kidney challenging formulations have the intended result of making you
(and your guest) captive to a highly priced drinks list.
- December 27, 2012 at 20:56
-
Melv,
Would you allow me to buy you several meals at one of these
establishments? I’m sure a constitution as strong as yours can cope with
chemicals. They may even cause a genetic change in which you turn into a
human being? Noggy can come along too if he wishes. Happy New Year.
- December 27, 2012 at 21:55
-
OK. It will make a welcome change for a troll to feed people.
- December 27, 2012 at 18:22
-
Oh, I can’t even entertain the idea of having any more food at the moment.
Christmas always blows me out and I yet again simply fail to learn the obvious
lesson!
- December 27, 2012 at 17:34
-
Colmans (Mustard Manufacturers) make most of their profits from the mustard
left on the side of the plate!
Not a lot of people know that…
- December 28, 2012 at 04:30
-
Hmm. I am always wary of these theories. Sold is sold. It does not matter
to Colemans WHAT happens to their product later.
It is not as if they get the left overs returned to re-bottle. THAT would
be making a profit. But as is…
O.K. I can possibly see the point…you empty a whole bottle of mustard
onto your bacon butty, but eat only half, next time you will buy a full
bottle, whereby only half was in fact needed….??
Na. I was born a cynic, not a businessman.
- December 27,
2012 at 17:09
-
Mudplugger,
It’s bad form in China to finish everything on one’s
plate/bowl because that would be seen as the host having failed to provide
enough food for his guests.
- December 27, 2012 at 12:08
-
A local restaurant near to where I live had the same problem. Their dishes
were each presented in a bowl or plate of their own and they often found
several bowls or plates which not even been touched. They put up a sign which
read something like, “Customers may return to the serving counter and take
food as often as they wish. Those same customers are requested to eat the food
they take. In the event of uneaten food, a standard fee of £*.** per plate
will apply.” The problem seemed to cease after that.
-
December 27, 2012 at 14:08
-
That’s a brilliant, pragmatic, solution.
-
December 27, 2012 at 19:09
-
Penseivat, that is common in Thailand also.
My colleague took me to an
AYCE in Bangkok with lovely, high-quality meals. I asked how they could do
it for the price.
Plate fines. That is how.
- December 27, 2012 at 12:06
-
The other side of the Fixed-Price-All-You-Can-Eat enticement is that
offered by Pizza Hut.
Yup, ‘all you can eat’; but with a very limited choice of pizza
toppings.
- December
27, 2012 at 12:00
-
“What really annoys my pals, however, is when customers load up their
plates with food, then leave much it uneaten – that inappropriate use of the
open buffet system really winds them up. There’s nothing stopping
customers revisiting the buffet as often as they like, gathering
freshly-cooked food each time, regardless of total volume, so why they insist
on collecting far more than they can eat and creating waste remains both
a mystery and a commercial annoyance. ”
Oh, god, me too! I love buffets precisely because you can take as much as
you want and go back for more – whereas if you order a la carte you might not
like what you ordered and yet feel obliged to eat it all. I cannot, for the
life of me, grasp why anyone feels the need to pile up their plate…
-
December 27, 2012 at 11:49
-
XX I’m no expert on the relevant legislation but would start from a point
that the ‘offer’ was clear, a ‘consideration’ was tendered and that,
therefore, a contract should exist.XX
IIRC, it is “an offer to treat”, not a contract?
-
December 27, 2012 at 11:54
-
You may be right, but I would have thought that once an ‘offer to treat’
had been accepted, a ‘contract’ then existed.
- December
27, 2012 at 17:02
-
Gildas the Monk is better qualified to explain the distinction between
an invitation to treat and an offer.
- December 28, 2012 at 17:24
-
Many would doubt that Brian. Now, where is this restaurant again?
- December 27, 2012 at 22:57
-
An ‘Invitation to treat’ is not a contract, but is a precursor to a
contract – an offer to the world to enter into a contract, made by the
offeror – for example, a picture in the window of a shop, priced at £49.99,
which invites the public to come into the shop and offer to buy it… If such
a person does come into the shop and offer to buy the picture, and the
shopkeeper accepts the offer (they can, of course, decline), the contract
comes into being at that point. The stated case that establishes this
principle is Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists
(Southern) Ltd [1953] EWCA Civ 6.
Our friend Furor’s memory is functioning correctly as is (apparently)
mine!
The elements of a contract (which is a voluntary agreement, entered into
between at least two parties), are:
Offer, an expression of willingness to contract on a specific set of
terms, made by the offeror with the intention that, if the offer is
accepted, he or she will be bound by a contract.
Acceptance, an expression of absolute and unconditional agreement to all
the terms set out in the offer, mirroring the exact terms of the original
offer.. It can be oral or in writing.
Consideration, each party to the contract must receive something of value
– the price paid for the other’s promise.
Intention, to create legal relations between the parties, who will be
bound by the terms of the contract.
The contract must be made by competent persons (each of whom has legal
Capacity).
I remembered it well having at one time put myself through the arduous
process of studying the law…
Applying what passes for a legal mind, I thought that the two gluttons
had fulfilled all the elements of the contract that was created when they
entered the establishment as customers, as had the restaurant in accepting
them as such, and so how they could summarily be ejected because they ate
too much in the circumstances under which they agreed to the deal at the
restaurant I find difficult to comprehend.
On the other hand, if their behaviour was as indicated, then I am not
surprised they were shown the door…
- December 27, 2012 at 10:26
-
Thank you for your kind suggestion of an open bar, but I’m sorry landlady,
I’ve had quite enough to drink this week already!
-
December 27, 2012 at 08:03
-
Another one? Or is this old news?
Is this about the Gobi Mongolian restaurant and the two rugby players,
George Dalmon and Andy Miles, both 26 (I don’t know why their age is relevant
but it’s in the report so I include it here for completeness)? If so, it
happened in October, if it’s in the news again this week maybe it was included
in a round up of the year’s news. It was much discussed at the time on a forum
I frequent.
There are, as ever, two sides to this story*. According to Auntie http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-19817457 they
were banned for their manners as much as, if not more than, their gluttony.
The restaurant co-owner said “They muck the buffet up for everyone, they push
and shuffle people from the barbecue area and it’s pretty sad really, because
you can eat all you like over five-and-a-half hours – it’s not an issue, you
don’t need to rush.”
* Although it has been said that anybody who thinks there are two sides to
every story has never listened to three eye witness accounts of the same
event.
- December 27, 2012 at
08:05
-
Mudplugger was on the ball as ever – the fault is mine, I ‘lost’ the post
and forgot to put it up at the right time – apologies…..
- December 28, 2012 at 09:02
-
You still haven’t got the hang of this management lark, have you? It
should have been “A member of staff failed to bring this to my attention.
Steps have been taken to ensure it doesn’t happen again.”
NB You could add the modern punctuation words “going forward” at the
end, i.e. “…ensure it doesn’t happen again, going forward.” to make it
sound properly portentous.
{ 34 comments }