Restaurant "Forced" Us to Order Extra Main Course - Was This Fair and Reasonable?

GOCAT9 on 11/09/2022 - 10:23

I wanted to socialise an experience we had last night to determine if my opinion was reasonable or not.

So three of us in total went out to a local restaurant last night. We ordered a bottle of wine to drink while we decided what food to order. Since we all agreed that we were not all super hungry, we decided to order a main course which was designed to be for two people according to the menu. It was our intention that the three of us would share it. When the waiter was taking our order, he said that because that main course we asked for was just for two people we HAD to order another main course because there were three of us. We explained that all we wanted to do was share that one main course order among the three of us. He said they could not do that.

To avoid "embarrassment" (which we later regretted) we capitulated and ordered another main course. In hindsight, we regret just not walking out in disgust. In the end, we had left over food as we could not eat it all! Note also that the restaurant did not mind us "sharing" the bottle of wine!!

So, I would just like to gauge your opinion as to whether the restaurant's "policy" was fair and reasonable and that WE were out of order. Poll below, thanks for reading.

Poll Options

  • 867
    NO, the restaurant was out of line demanding we order the equivalent of three main courses.
  • 189
    YES, the restaurant was within its rights to refuse us sharing only one main meal designed for two.
Food & Grocery

Comments

  • WreckTangle on 11/09/2022 - 10:26
    +132

    Shoulda walked out

    • Vater Woods on 12/09/2022 - 11:58
      +45

      My experience in a small business, walk out could have saved the restaurant some money.

      3 bloke taking a table, sitting for two hours, ordering one dish and one wine, it doesn't even cover the waiters, rent, insurance, utilities and the restaurant still have to pay taxes despite losing money on this transaction.

      PS, in Victoria, Box Hill, rent on a 10 table restaurant, each table cost ~$40 per hour.

      • BigBirdy on 12/09/2022 - 12:13
        +18

        And if the table then sat empty, it cost the restaurant some money.

        Should Box Hill (10 table) restaurants set a minimum consumption of $40/hour per table?

        • Vater Woods on 12/09/2022 - 14:08
          +2

          Pretty sure, on weekend evenings, where their prime time is, it pretty hard for it to be empty.

          On weekday day time, sure, anything is better than nothing, since most of the time it 80-90% empty.

          But on weekend evening? Where their whole weeks earnings is relied on the 16-24 hours over three evenings?

          PS: I have minimum spend for my business, not much it $5(did does not even cover the cook, cost, rent, utilities, taxes, insurance, packagings) , for the 10 to 15 minutes of preparing their meal. and there is people playing tantrums over it, it too hard for them to comprehend, they just assume the $5 is my business pure profit.

          • Jo DiMambro on 12/09/2022 - 14:56
            +2

            @Vater Woods: Pretty gutlessly run business then. No wonder these types are always sticking the boot into their staff.

            • Vater Woods on 12/09/2022 - 15:34
              +5

              @Jo DiMambro: I pay my staffs 20-40% above minimum, depend on their performance.

              I haven't paid myself a cents from the business since Jan this year, but all my staff are paid correctly and upto date.

              • randomvis on 13/09/2022 - 23:42
                -2

                @Vater Woods: Don't bother— these people are essentially communists that expect people like yourself to work for free.

          • Poor Ass on 12/09/2022 - 14:59
            +3

            @Vater Woods: minimum spend illegal

            minimum spend on EFTPOS legal

      • picklewizard on 12/09/2022 - 17:47
        +29

        Ok, let's do the maths, shall we?

        $40/hour * 10 tables = $400 per hour
        Restaurant trades for 8 hours a day = $3200 a day
        Restaurant trades 6 days per week = $19,200 per week
        Restaurant trades 52 weeks per year = $998,400 per year

        $1M rent per year? Really?

        • Vater Woods on 12/09/2022 - 18:10
          +9

          Thanks for the correction, my math went wrong somewhere. The rent in Skyone for one shop is around 200k PA.

          PS: After adding one Chef, 2 Waiters(@ minimum $25 an hour, that would be $750 for 10 hour day) , utilities(my small business is about $60 a day), a restaurant would easily double, say $100.

          It works to be around $14.5 per table per hour.

          • Charmoffensive on 12/09/2022 - 20:35
            +18

            @Vater Woods: In other words, a bottle of wine and a double sized main would've easily turned a profit for the table.

            • Vater Woods on 12/09/2022 - 22:34
              +5

              @Charmoffensive: Let say $66 for the two, $6 goes gst, $29 goes expense for 2 hours, stock $20, ATO benchmark @50% @25% tax(60x0.5x0.25=7.5)

              You can make $3.5 for 2 hours, ignoring the shop is maintainence free, multiple insurance free, food registration free.
              You're just slightly better than slave.

              If a stranger give you $3.5, would you cook and buy a bottle of wine, and serve it for three people, than standby for 2 hours for service and clean after?

              • Charmoffensive on 12/09/2022 - 23:42
                +12

                @Vater Woods:

                Let say $66 for the two

                That's very cheap. $30 for a cheap bottle of wine and $55 for a shared main is more reasonable. $85 is a better figure to work with. 8.5 to GST, 29 goes expense for 2 hours, stock $20, not sure why you think the ATO is taking 50% of your revenue and then a further 25% of that. So 76.5-29-20=27.5x0.25 tax = $20.63 this is also assuming they stay for 2 hours and not just 1 or 1.5. A bottle of wine and light meal would only take about an hour for 3 people. Anything else is just idle speculation.

                If a stranger give you $3.5, would you cook and buy a bottle of wine, and serve it for three people, than standby for 2 hours for service and clean after?

                Yes, because they're also paying my wages as a chef, waiter and kitchen hand, which you also factored into your price.

                The real question is: Would I take $20.60 off a stranger to sit back and do sod all while someone else cooks and serves them? Yes. Yes I would.

                • Vater Woods on 12/09/2022 - 23:54
                  -6

                  @Charmoffensive: $55 main is pretty expensive, not sure stingy OP will order that.

                  But if OP does, than stock of the $55 main will more than likely to be more than $10, even $20 is pretty modest.

                  So take further $10 off your calculations, $10.60 for 2 hours, $5.30 per hour on prime time.

                  Less tha 50 cents per 10 minutes to take on 3 difficult customers, just the thought of that want to bang my head against the wall.

                  • Charmoffensive on 13/09/2022 - 13:46
                    +1

                    @Vater Woods: Again, who said it would be two hours? 3 people would easily have finished a bottle and a shared main within an hour, so either they're sitting at the table doing nothing for an hour, or they're more than likely ordering more wine.

                    I'm not even going to bother debating the price of stock at this point, but the question remains the same:

                    "Would I take $10.60 off a stranger to sit back and do sod all while someone else cooks and serves them? Yes. Yes I would."

                    • Vater Woods on 14/09/2022 - 10:27
                      -1

                      @Charmoffensive: Your tears will wash a mountain into ocean, if your boss short paid you just $1 an hour, not to mention getting paid $5.30 an hour.

                      How about you only take $5.30 an hour for 2 years(Covid and inflation have affected more than 2 years on restaurant) and donate the rest of your pay, then come back and tell us your feelings.

              • Harold Halfprice on 13/09/2022 - 18:51
                +7

                @Vater Woods:

                If a stranger give you $3.5

                First you incorrectly calculate rent to be $40 an hour per table. Not even sure how you managed that…

                Now you're claiming it's $3.50 to cook, buy a bottle of wine, serve it, standby for 2 hours and clean after - which is completely wrong. You got paid $66 for that, not $3.50.

                That's how running a business works, you make money on somethings and you make a loss on others. Not every customer is going to be a group of 3 sharing a main for 2 and a bottle of wine. That table could have been empty.

                Besides, a bottle of wine is likely to cost more than a main course. What's the issue with 2 mains + a bottle, vs 3 mains and no drinks?

                It's just shit service at the end of the day, and in the long run that can't be good for business.

                • Vater Woods on 14/09/2022 - 10:31
                  -1

                  @Harold Halfprice: Wow, so you're a saint that never miscalculated.

                  Despite i already admitted previously, you still have to hold it against me.

                  Maybe you're just the kind difficult customer that can never be pleased.

                  How about you make nothing for 2 years and see your savings go boom(some restaurants didn't even make to this point, they go bust), then a righteous saint came along telling you you only deserve $5.30 an hour. Despite you telling them, during the day time your restaurant is 80-90% empty and only making up the loss during Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings.

                  • Harold Halfprice on 14/09/2022 - 23:40
                    +4

                    @Vater Woods: Yeah, cause it's a massive miscalculation to make. Surely running a business you'd have at least some understanding to make you go "hold on, 40/hr per table is just ridiculous." Your estimate was 5x over.

                    Regardless - 2 meals and a bottle of wine is at least equivalent to 3 meals and no drinks, is it not? I can't see a bottle of wine costing any less than 1 main. However a bottle of wine doesn't require a chef, nor a cook.

                    If the 3 customers only order 3 main meals, would you require them to order drinks as well?

                    Some customers will come in and order more than 1 main per person, entrees and drinks. I bet you don't tell them "sorry you have to order less".

          • MrCAMEL on 12/09/2022 - 22:04
            +3

            @Vater Woods: $25 an hour for a 10 hour shift is 20-40% above minimum wage? Not in this country!

            • Vater Woods on 12/09/2022 - 22:25
              -1

              @MrCAMEL: Learn to read, i did rough calculation by minimum wage. Can't remember the exact numbers, but it should be 23 to 24, so I use 25.

              • MrCAMEL on 14/09/2022 - 08:22
                -2

                @Vater Woods: Yeah, nuh. Still doesn’t work. Maybe you didn’t read what you wrote, or you wrote something you weren’t supposed to.

      • TSH on 14/09/2022 - 13:54
        -1

        If youre in the busness of costing out bits of furniture at $40 an hour,
        you're probably better off running a brothel.

      • GnarlyKnuckles on 20/09/2022 - 00:51

        Re:

        'PS, in Victoria, Box Hill, rent on a 10 table restaurant, each table cost ~$40 per hour.'

        That is absolute and utter BS VazWoods; unless you are paying to lease a joint in some sort of prime location but only actually opening/operating it three nights a week for 2 hours or something ludicrous like that.

        What prompts idiots to chime in with clearly false assertions like these, which even a child could deduce were false using rudimentary primary school maths?

      • Grazz989 on 27/09/2022 - 10:36
        -1

        What a joke. What if it were two people at the same table, and they ordered the same thing? That's suddenly fine? … Ridiculous.

  • oscargamer on 11/09/2022 - 10:29
    +131

    They can ask/demand whatever they want of you.

    You can refuse that request/demand.

    If they then ask you to leave, you must leave.

    It's their business, they can set whatever rules they want (so long as they are not illegal)

    • pegaxs on 11/09/2022 - 11:24
      +31

      And these rules need to be clearly outlined somewhere such as a sign at the door or somewhere on the menu or by a representative of the establishment prior to ordering.

      While they can set whatever rules they want, they can’t expect patrons to adhere to these rules if they are not displayed.

      But agree with the “if you are asked to leave, you must leave”, as staying constitutes trespassing.

      • Ryanek on 12/09/2022 - 07:45
        +14

        And these rules need to be clearly outlined somewhere

        No they don't

        • Grazz989 on 27/09/2022 - 10:40

          Otherwise it's false advertisement. Imagine you're halfway through a meal and then the waiter turns up and says 'Uh uh uh! You've got to order a minimum of 3 beverages and dessert here!'. They've already sat down and purchased wine etc, they've been sat down at the table etc. That's too late to start stipulating conditions!

      • CalmLemons on 12/09/2022 - 20:52
        +4

        It would be nice to have the rules outlined.

        It is not a legal requirement though.

        Purely courtesy.

        However given the situation in hospitality it is understandable, but not ideal. Sometimes you just need to deal with shity non money making customers in hospitality.

        If it was my restauraunt I would be pissed though at these time wasters.

    • Tommyaka on 12/09/2022 - 08:45
      +10

      100% correct. The poll is stupid because this situation falls under both options.

      Yes the restaurant was out of line, this isn't normal practice.

      At the same time, yes the restaurant has the right to refuse service.

      • GnarlyKnuckles on 20/09/2022 - 01:06
        +1

        Re:

        'At the same time, yes the restaurant has the right to refuse service.'

        Where did anyone mention/claim that the restaurant 'refused service'? You seem to have missed the point entirely, which was that these guys were (reportedly) served alcohol, then 'strong-armed' into buying more food than they actually wanted to by the staff (i.e. the staff insisted that the customers paid for extra 'services'). I want to know the name and location of this restaurant, if this is in fact a legitimate post. If you tried this s**t in Melbourne, you wouldn't last a week.

    • Speckled Jim on 12/09/2022 - 08:51
      +6

      What if a lone diner ordered the main "intended for two"?
      Do you think the waiter will refuse? Will the diner be expected to find someone to share with?

      No, they'll serve the big portion to one person. They'll break their own "rule".

      Food waste is a massive problem along the supply chain. Most decent businesses are doing something about it. Just not those desperate or greedy ones.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 20/09/2022 - 00:58

      Re:

      'They can ask/demand whatever they want of you.'

      'Ask' and 'demand' are two completely different things, and 'so long as they are not illegal' renders your comment completely meaningless. You might as well have stated 'They can legally do whatever they want, as long as it is not illegal'. It is odd that your comment got so many upvotes, because it is incorrect on so many levels, not to mention highly ambiguous, and so circuitous that it is completely redundant.

      • oscargamer on 20/09/2022 - 09:38

        Thanks for your input

  • kerfuffle on 11/09/2022 - 10:34
    +33

    Some restaurants insist that each person taking up a seat must order food or spend a minimum per person

    • Almost Banned on 11/09/2022 - 10:50
      +1

      But was this such a restaurant, and if so, did they have it clearly signposted?
      I think it is ridiculous that they determine how many people are allowed to eat a specific dish. Would they have complained if they'd ordered the dish to share between two but said they'd just eat it on their own?

      • oscargamer on 11/09/2022 - 11:10
        +10

        Clearly signposted? - What the? - There is no legal requirement for this…..

        The waiter told them when they ordered…..

      • GOCAT9 on 11/09/2022 - 11:23
        +1

        did not see it posted anywhere!

        • oscargamer on 11/09/2022 - 13:00
          +8

          Cos they don't have to……

          • cookie2 on 11/09/2022 - 19:09
            +3

            @oscargamer: They do if it's a condition to be able to purchase/dine. Q. Do you think this is appropriate?

            • oscargamer on 11/09/2022 - 19:31
              -1

              @cookie2: Don't be silly.

              The waiter told the people at a time that was appropriate (before they ordered) and yes, Yes I do think it's perfectly appropriate.

              • cookie2 on 11/09/2022 - 20:07
                +14

                @oscargamer: Nope. After they got their wine, if I'm reading OPs post correctly. So you think advising someone of this, after they've sat down, after they've ordered and been served a bottle of wine and after they've read the menu to decide what they wanted? You think that's appropriate?

                • oscargamer on 11/09/2022 - 20:17
                  +9

                  @cookie2: Yes. I have no problem with that.

                  A restaurant is for ordering food, not snacking.

                  They are there to make money and they can't make money if people occupy their tables and don't spend enough.

                  Their business model requires a certain spend per m2 per hour or per person per sitting.

                  Maybe order a main meal, don't eat it and get it as a takeaway for lunch the following day?

                  • od810 on 12/09/2022 - 00:45
                    +8

                    @oscargamer: Minimum order per head makes sense but forcing a main per head is a dumb policy. They could have ordered more wines/beers and we all know that drinks have way higher margin than food.

                  • VXCT on 12/09/2022 - 13:04
                    +3

                    @oscargamer: It is a silly policy - as does it mean the 3rd person who is with the group must eat? What if that person didn't feel well and didn't want to eat at all, so he/she has to leave and wait outside?

                  • Grazz989 on 27/09/2022 - 10:45

                    @oscargamer: Ridiculous. Their business model is not a justification for what is effectively entrapment and false advertisement.

                    You're welcome to stipulate whatever you want as a condition of eating there, but it's both immoral and against the spirit if not the letter (I am not a lawyer, maybe it's that, too) to wait until people have already opened their wine and gotten comfortable before pulling this stunt on them.

                    Imagine your business model is to have super cheap mains but to make huge profit margins on dessert. People order their mains and sit around for 25 minutes, and then you tell them - Oh by the way, you've got to order dessert in order to dine here. Now either cop loads of wasted time and effort, or fork over the dough for the extra food you didn't want.

                • ripesashimi on 12/09/2022 - 01:26
                  +2

                  @cookie2: Definitely. You can always walk out after that and leave a negative review. If you chose to stay and put up with their instruction, that's on you.

                • MrFunSocks on 12/09/2022 - 12:10

                  @cookie2: They can likely come in and just drink wine all night without ordering food though and the restaurant will happily have them. If they do order mains though, they need to have a main per person according to the servings per main.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 20/09/2022 - 01:08

      Re:

      'Some restaurants insist that each person taking up a seat must order food or spend a minimum per person'

      Can I have a few verifiable examples of this please? I am extremely old, and I have lived in almost every state and territory in Australia, and I have never once encountered this.

  • Benoffie on 11/09/2022 - 11:09
    +58

    We're in a time where restaurants are struggling for a variety of reasons and you booked a table, on a Saturday night and didnt want to eat?

    Id have been pissed too - as the owner. That's a cover chewed up and producing virtually no income.

    Should have gone to somewhere more appropriate for sharing if you weren't actually hungry.

      • foxmulder on 11/09/2022 - 14:10
        +10

        2 years of not much business and still has to pay same amount of rent is very hard to recover from.

        • cookie2 on 11/09/2022 - 19:10
          +20

          It's a business, not charity. Struggling businesses go under all the time and new business opportunity is created.

          • cameldownunder on 12/09/2022 - 13:54
            +4

            @cookie2: If you walk around in some places, I would say you are wrong. Many businesses go under and their space never gets filled again.

            • Jolakot on 13/09/2022 - 10:22

              @cameldownunder: That's more an issue of greedy landlords than anything, those businesses still exist, just in places where the rent isn't extortionate

              • [Deactivated] on 13/09/2022 - 10:33
                -1

                @Jolakot: The government can setup business districts and compete with the landlords to reduce their collective grip on rents. Unfortunately the government chosen does not represent the interests of the workers and small businesses.

              • GnarlyKnuckles on 20/09/2022 - 16:29

                @Jolakot: Re:

                '… greedy landlords'

                Scoff. The market essentially dictates rents. Virtually all landlords charge whatever they can get. Working that out is not rocket science.

        • markathome on 13/09/2022 - 12:52
          -2

          I get this. But I'm little surprised how little people are talking about the lockdowns. Living in Melbourne, I still haven't recovered from Dan Andrews's lockdowns. It was the number one issue that shaped my vote in the Federal election in 2022 and I suspect it'll still be the number one issue when we vote again in 2025. But substantially less than 2% of Vote Compass respondents felt the same way. In Victoria, there'll be a political party standing on the issue of taxis but there won't be a single one standing on the issue of the lockdowns unless you consider the Health Australia Party one (fully vaccinated - I definitely don't). Am I living in an ABC-distortion bubble? Or did most Australians feel lockdowns were pretty easy/old news/irrelevant/no consequence to their lives?

          https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/candidates-and-parties/registered…

          • Imitation on 13/09/2022 - 22:21
            +1

            @markathome: I live in Darwin. We had an influx of people from all over the country but a ridiculous amount of Vic plates here. Like insane.

            • markathome on 14/09/2022 - 17:29

              @Imitation: Truth be told, Victoria's getting its mojo back. So there is daylight in the distance for those Victorians left behind. But yeah for some people these lockdowns were devastating. Guessing not for the four people who downvoted me.

    • thrillhouse on 12/09/2022 - 07:34
      +29

      Yeah I'm with you on this one. Who goes to a restaurant that they booked, without the intent to eat (or eat very little)?
      Should have just gone to a wine bar and had some small plates.

    • ColtNoir on 12/09/2022 - 09:33

      The behaviour of places is ridiculous though.

      All these cancellation fees and minimum orders.
      Went to a place recently that had a $30/head cancellation fee, they were at less than 50% capacity when we came. What business did you lose out on if we cancelled our booking? None.

      • Geoff01 on 12/09/2022 - 09:42
        +1

        How could they enforce that unless you had to pay $30 per head up front to get the booking. If you rang to cancel who's going to pay $30. Not me

        • BillyG687 on 12/09/2022 - 10:11
          +3

          Some places will take a card at time of booking, and then charge you on that. I don't agree with the practice, but I understand why.

        • ColtNoir on 20/09/2022 - 09:55

          Card at booking time and agreeing to terms and conditions.

      • Tleyx on 12/09/2022 - 10:16
        +2

        They order based food on number of bookings .

      • cameldownunder on 12/09/2022 - 13:58
        +2

        And do you know if the 50% empty spaces were all bookings ? I think restaurants can call up more staff if needed ( booking ratio ), probably plan on how much food to buy, and eventually also get a cooking hand for the evening. They'll have to pay that if you eat there or not.
        Restaurant is a shitty business, you have to deal with cranky, entitled people who only want have a shared plate and maybe a BYO vino.

        • ColtNoir on 20/09/2022 - 09:59

          I booked and still had to wait 15mins for a table, for a group of 5.
          If you’re going to be such a stickler for the rules, at least have tables ready for your bookings.

          • cameldownunder on 20/09/2022 - 20:27

            @ColtNoir: Agree.
            Assumption is that they planned for a 2 hour dinner session, and the people on that table did not leave in time.

      • [Deactivated] on 12/09/2022 - 22:49
        +1

        These are the best places to eat, they know how many staff to have because people show up, so food is quicker and you’re not trying to find a waiter because they’re understaffed in case of cancellations. Less food waste too.

    • skidexa on 13/09/2022 - 18:25
      +4

      A main course for 2 shared between 3 people is hardly "didn't want to eat".

    • Grazz989 on 27/09/2022 - 10:47

      Just because your business is struggling is no excuse to start relying on shady behaviour. If it's justifiable to require one main per head, then you can put that on a sign at the front. And if that hurts business, then it proves the point that springing it on people once they've already opened their wine and gotten settled in is just flat out wrong.

  • pegaxs on 11/09/2022 - 11:20
    +34

    “oh, ok, well, just bring us the bill for what we have already had and we will go elsewhere…” seems a simple enough fix…

    • GOCAT9 on 11/09/2022 - 11:25
      +9

      we should have done that, that was my thought at the time, but "social pressure/embarrassment" - yes, I know, our fault!

      • ThithLord on 11/09/2022 - 11:33
        +7

        OP could it have anything to do with their liquor licensing? Just a thought. If not, yea you shoulda just left it at that!

        • Zephyrus on 12/09/2022 - 12:54

          I can't imagine there's any requirement for how much food. I'm pretty sure the only requirement is that food is available, not that you order or eat any of it.

      • pegaxs on 11/09/2022 - 11:38
        +29

        What social pressure? What embarrassment? Some random waiter at a restaurant?

        You don't have to kick off like a Karen, you just politely say "Thanks, but if that is the terms, I don't agree to them, so if we could just fix up for what we have ordered (if anything)" and you quietly leave. There is nothing socially awkward about that. You wouldn't have been the first to leave over it and you wont be the last.

        • skidexa on 13/09/2022 - 18:26
          +2

          Chill, they acknowledged that was what they should have done…

    • Grazz989 on 27/09/2022 - 10:50

      But that's just bullshit. You're hungry, you've wasted time getting there, getting seated, getting comfortable, you've got half drunk wine in front of you - It's super sleazy and exploitative to wait until you don't want to spend the time and effort leaving and going somewhere else before springing terms and conditions on you.

      If there's really nothing wrong with what they're requiring from their customers in this regard, then what excuse is there not to have it clearly marked near the front of the restaurant - or at least on the first page of the menu?

  • garetz on 11/09/2022 - 11:45
    +24

    If any restaurant insisted I order anything that I did not want, I would just get up and walk out of there, they are not getting a cent from me.

  • p1 ama on 11/09/2022 - 11:49

    Restaurant "forced" us to order extra main course - was this fair and reasonable?

    So the restaurant tied you up, pointed a gun at you and said that you had to order an extra main course otherwise someone will get hurt? Don't be dramatic, nobody forced you to do anything. You chose to order the two mains. You could have easily walked out and ate somewhere else.

    I don't know why you are seeing this as a moral "right / wrong", "reasonable / unreasonable" issue. It is not a moral issue. The restaurant are well within their rights to ask that you order two dishes. You are well within your rights to do so, or to leave. Completely transactional, not a moral issue.

    • bobbified on 11/09/2022 - 12:26
      +3

      So the restaurant tied you up, pointed a gun at you and said that you had to order an extra main course otherwise someone will get hurt?

      Yes. your honour. That is exactly what they did. 😆

      • holdenmg on 11/09/2022 - 19:28

        I'm pretty sure funding from Victims of Crime levy would be available. :+)

    • GOCAT9 on 11/09/2022 - 15:01
      +22

      that's why I put the word forced in inverted commas so you would not take it literally, but it looks like you did!!

      • p1 ama on 11/09/2022 - 22:06
        -2

        So then any time someone requests you do something, they are "forcing" you?

        Of course I didn't take it literally, just like I'm sure you didn't take my insinuation that you were tied up and actually forced to order two mains literally. However, the point still stands.

        • Daz91 on 14/09/2022 - 16:14
          +3

          OP was metaphorically forced in the sense that leaving and going elsewhere wasn’t really a valid course of action (are you really going to get up and leave with the rest of your table and go through the rigmarole of starting over at a new restaurant, of course you’re not)

          • p1 ama on 16/09/2022 - 09:32

            @Daz91:

            going elsewhere wasn’t really a valid course of action (are you really going to get up and leave with the rest of your table and go through the rigmarole of starting over at a new restaurant, of course you’re not)

            Why not?

            • Daz91 on 17/09/2022 - 00:39

              @p1 ama: Sorry I thought common sense was enough to carry the point, do you really need it spelled out for you?

            • Grazz989 on 27/09/2022 - 10:55

              @p1 ama: Seriously? Because the time wasted, the fact that you've got drinks in front of you, you're hungry, etc?

    • Grazz989 on 27/09/2022 - 10:54

      You're a straight up sociopath or autistic or something.

      This isn't about whether they were literally, as opposed to figuratively, forced. This isn't even about whether that policy is ethically wrong. Obviously.

      This is about whether it's wrong to hide that requirement until customers are already seated, gotten comfortable, have opened their wine, etc etc - have rooted themselves, in other words. You would be enraged if you booked a hotel for an overseas trip, you get there, and they demand you buy a hundred dollars of room service - but only tell you that when you get there. Sure, you could cancel the booking and hope you can find somewhere else, but the shitty, trap-like situation they've put you into is obvious!

  • Mokr on 11/09/2022 - 11:57
    +5

    Doggy bag

    But yeah

  • bargaino on 11/09/2022 - 12:33
    +8

    Outrageous! Minimum per-person spend clearly posted on the menu is acceptable.

    I'm sure the wine bottle was more profitable than the extra dish. Do they refuse to serve non-drinkers?

    • Grazz989 on 27/09/2022 - 10:57

      Great point. Since when does the business model of any business justify sleazy practices? If customers who order alcoholic beverages are more profitable, then I guess it's fine to tell them that they have to order a bottle of wine each? Ridiculous.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join