toddabearsf's Profile
Lehigh Pub Bethlehem news item
There is definitely an implied contract when ordering food in a restaurant as when transacting any business with a merchant. However, no merchant can legally collect money for goods or services that were not provided. The implied contract here is that for an 18% gratuity, a reasonably acceptable level of service would be provided. That did not happen here.
Stealing? Absolutely not. They paid for their food and their beverages and the applicable taxes. Had the service been decent, the restaurant would have a right to collect the 18% gratuity, but they failed to provide acceptable service.
If you ordered a $10 hamburger and the restaurant never brought you the hamburger but still charged for it on the bill, not paying for the hamburger would not be stealing.
As to "gypping" the bartender, busboy and ktichen staff, no patron is obligated to tip for awful service and the service was awful in this case. I agree that customers are not always right, but in this case they definitely were and the restaurant was beyond wrong.
No court of law will side with the restaurant when it comes to charging for service when the service was way below the minimum acceptable level in the mind of a judge or jury.
Lehigh Pub Bethlehem news item
Just putting something on the bill doesn't obligate anyone to pay for something. There's an implied contact in retail transactions that says the merchant has to provide the goods or services being charged for.
A restaurant can't legally force you to pay for food they failed to deliver to the table and they can't force you to pay for horrible service. If they're going to charge 18% for service, they have to provide an acceptable level of service. Not bringing the food for over an hour, not delivering the beverages with the patrons having to traipse to the bar to get their own, and not providing silverware and napkins clearly demonstrate the service was horrible. They can't collect a gratuity just because the patrons sat at a table.
Lehigh Pub Bethlehem news item
A lot of people seem to have missed the point is that there are two sides in an implied contract with a merchant. When a merchant charges for goods or services, he or she has to provide those goods or services. Otherwise, the purchaser cannot be made to pay for them.
If a restaurant wants to disclose on its menu that 18% will charged as a gratuity for all parties of six or more, fine, but that doesn't allow the restaurant to fail to provide at least average service to the patrons.
In this case, the service was egregiously bad and the restaurant failed to provide a reasonably adequate level of service to the customers. They really needed to take that charge of the bill given the lack of service, but refused to do it. Further, the patrons paid for the food, beverages and taxes on the bill, so they simply refuse to pay for something they didn't get.
It's really no different than if they'd ordered a food item that never was brought to the table, yet appeared on the bill when presented.
The police were totally out of line here. They would never have arrested the couple if they refused to pay for a food item on the bill that they never received.
Assuming the defendants' attorney files a motion for summary judgment, I predict the charges will be dismissed at the first court appearance.
At that point, I can only hope the defendants will sue both the restaurants and the police for the injustice they experienced. Being arrested, booked and jailed is a horrible thing to experience when you've done nothing wrong. They should be compensated for that experience and I think punitive or exemplary damages would be appropriate, too.
You don't give people horrendously bad restaurant service and then have them jailed because they object to paying for atrocious service. If the food and beverages and taxes were paid, the restaurant wouldn't have been out any money. The waiter or waitress would have been out the money, but he or she didn't deserve a tip in this case.
