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

  • happydude on 11/09/2022 - 12:39
    +26

    A lot of outrage here but it is a liquor licensing requirement that alcohol is served with a meal. While you could agrue three people sharing one meal designed for two people meets that requirement, there can be a lot at stake if liqor licensing has a different opinion. It appears the restaurant took this out of an abundance of caution.

    http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/sa/conso…

    "meal" means a genuine meal eaten while seated at a table;

    • Switchblade88 on 11/09/2022 - 17:47
      +10

      They served the wine without any promise of a meal from the customers though…

      • happydude on 11/09/2022 - 19:19
        +13

        It's a social normal to order a meal at a resturant.

        I'm convinced that a minium wage waiter isn't having that conversation unless they had to.

    • Nebargains on 12/09/2022 - 06:15
      +2

      I highly doubt the owner or the waiter are across the finer details of the liquor licence beyond it allows the to sell alcohol.

      • happydude on 12/09/2022 - 09:08
        +5

        Alcohol only with a meal was a standard part of training in all restaurants I worked in.

        It's not a "finer detail", it's as well known as 'don't serve a drunk person'.

    • NigelTufnel on 12/09/2022 - 13:56
      +1

      Can a "meal" be a salad, or some fries or something that's not a full main that was 'required'?

      Given they had already ordered and started drinking the wine before the waiter took food orders, surely the venue have been in more trouble letting them leave after informing them and just paying for the wine without any food in this case?

      • happydude on 12/09/2022 - 15:04
        +4

        It has to be a genuine meal, not snacks etc. Obviously it is subjective and open to interpretation.

        One place I worked a guy was happy to serve 1 piece of garlic bread for $1 to then sell beer. Obviously that's not a genuine meal.

        In WA is spelt out a bit more:

        meal means food —
        (a) that is eaten by a person sitting at a table, or a fixed structure used as a table, with cutlery provided for the purpose of eating the food; and
        (b) that is of sufficient substance as to be ordinarily accepted as a meal; and
        (c) that may consist of one or more courses, but does not include any food prescribed not to be a meal;

        Liquor inspectors I have dealt with are pragmatic in the sense that you can only do what you can do. If the customer walks out after being told they needed to order food to continue to dine that would usually be ok. Most of the laws are written as "The licensee must not allow…" which gives you an out.

        Truth be told they don't come around that often.

        The problem is you can't have a restaurant licence and then operate it as a wine bar. That is a different licence that comes under a different risk assessment.

        If you lived close to a restaurant that suddenly became a roundy bar without going through public consolation you'd probably be pissed off. OP would probably be here ranting that they are breaking the law.

        If every restaurant started operating as a bar it would become a societal problem. Alcohol sales are licenced because of the harm it causes.

        I don't know what was ordered, but the waiter may have been concerned it wouldn't have been a good look. Or maybe they had been pinged before. I dunno but either way it wasn't unreasonable.

  • oscargamer on 11/09/2022 - 13:02
    -1

    The other option OP, would have been for your group to state that you didn't all want to eat, BEFORE you sat down…..

    Just saying…. Always at least two options

    • Domingo on 11/09/2022 - 13:06
      +12

      They did want to eat. Just a smaller amount than the restaurant wanted them to.

  • apsilon on 11/09/2022 - 13:09
    +19

    Why would you go to a restaurant on one of the typically busy nights if none of you were actually hungry? You're taking up space that others could use that would actually be looking to eat. I think the restaurant were in the right in this case. You could've easily just paid for your wine and left if you didn't like it.

      • apsilon on 11/09/2022 - 15:15
        +30

        It's a private business, they can set whatever sort of limits they want. You're taking up a 4 person table on a busy night then want to only order one main. They could be using the table for 4 people ordering 4 entrees and mains along with drinks and maybe even desserts. Obviously this will come as a surprise to you but they're in business to make money. What you wanted would almost certainly be a loss for them.

        • Nebargains on 12/09/2022 - 06:16
          +5

          I'm guessing that one main, which was for two, was priced like it was for two.

      • cktftw on 12/09/2022 - 08:38
        +7

        cum on dude!!

        Hmm not sure I want that but each to their own

        • slipperypete on 12/09/2022 - 09:13
          +3

          poor dude

        • kiitos on 12/09/2022 - 18:17
          +1

          The waiter said it had to be on at least 2 dudes.

      • slipperypete on 12/09/2022 - 09:13
        +6

        Show me a peer reviewed quantitative scale which shows a person's degree of hungriness and then show me what level is required to pass the test that I am hungry enough to qualify for a table in a restaurant?

        it's more common sense and courtesy, which seems to be lacking in todays 'demanding my goddam American constitutional right '

        I understand both sides but a table in a restaurant on a busy night is where they get income. It just requires a little awareness and consideration of others.

  • JimmyF on 11/09/2022 - 13:22
    +6

    Lots of places have a min charge per person. Helps cover the overheads etc.

    So think of your 'extra' meal as part of the 'cover charge'. You took up a table that would have seated 3/4 but only ordered food for 2 people.

    • Lovemydeals on 11/09/2022 - 16:03
      +2

      I always found it quite funny when going for Chinese dumplings when you would be seated across from a total stranger so no seat goes unfilled. 😄

      • JimmyF on 11/09/2022 - 17:59

        Yep, no seats are wasted, so no need to order extra meals :)

        I'm guessing the OP was out last night, so Sat night aka peak time of the week, hence the 1 main meal per person requirement. They don't want bodies taking up tables who are not eating.

      • JimB on 12/09/2022 - 09:40

        And most people are happy to so they get served quicker.

        If I'm by myself, I don't really care if someone else joins.

        All now accepted at higher end restaurants and cafes, fancy name is 'communal table dining'.

  • spersephone on 11/09/2022 - 13:46
    +15

    Quite often we order 1 main meal and then some extra entrees between us. I did once go to a cafe where we (my father and I) wanted to have something to drink and maybe some nibbles. As we were being shown to our seats, we were told that there was a minimum spend and it was pretty high - like $50 per person. We decided to go somewhere else. I did tell them they should make this clear at the door, instead of making us feel humiliated as we were about to sit down.

    • Lovemydeals on 11/09/2022 - 16:01
      +16

      $50 pp minimum is a bit steap & putting you on the spot. Those conditions of entering should have definitely been displayed at the front.

      Probably a tactic the restaurant uses to guilt people into spending $50 a head.

      Cafe should be named & shamed in this occasion. What state/city was it in?

      Maybe write a google review to warn other potential diners of their policy. With competition for cafes substantially increasing with a huge reduction of workforce going into cities, would think that spend demand is a bit rich.

  • sharkyoz on 11/09/2022 - 13:56
    +3

    should have just made the order a takeaway, problem solved.

  • brendanm on 11/09/2022 - 14:25
    +1

    They can do whatever they want. So can you. You chose to stay and accepted their conditions, as daft as they are.

  • foxmulder on 11/09/2022 - 15:34
    +1

    Have you tried to contact the restaurant and speak to a manager there,to confirm if this is really their policy or just that one waitress made up policy?

  • LyndonBBear on 11/09/2022 - 15:36
    +3

    3 entrees may have been a better solution.

  • Lovemydeals on 11/09/2022 - 15:57
    +4

    Out of curiosity, what kind of restaurant was it & what time of day/day of the week?

    A lot of Japanese Izakaya style restaurants have this policy… BUT it is clearly displayed outside & reiterated when sitting down at the table. They do this as their seating is very limited due to small restaurants.

    Not an excuse & think it was rude for them to demand when you also bought a bottle of wine.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2022 - 17:15
    +3

    It's a little odd, because wine is generally where they make money.

    You were drinking, which is easy money for a restaurant.

    Very off request.

    • mactos on 12/09/2022 - 08:18
      +9

      They ordered one bottle and it was probably the cheapest. 3 people sitting at a 4 person table. Only ordered 2 mains for 3 people. Restaurant are making a loss on this table for sure.

      • od810 on 12/09/2022 - 11:48
        +1

        They might order more drink if they aren't forced to have another main dish. The waiter could have said there is a min order per head rather than you have to take a main dish. Min order per head is a much more transparent metric.

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 11/09/2022 - 17:28
    +4

    Stay home OP, seriously.

    It is like tighta$$es who go to cafes and order sit-down coffees and tap water, spend $20 / 4 people and sit there for 90 minutes - while tens of people are waiting to get in so they can spend money.

    • cookie2 on 11/09/2022 - 19:14
      +6

      You know you're on ozb right?

    • cookie2 on 11/09/2022 - 20:05
      +1

      Ofcourse, crazy me. People who only want a coffee and a social chat, shouldn't stay in a venue if they only want to buy a coffee each. People with lots of money they want to spend have more rights to that table.

      • wombok2 on 11/09/2022 - 23:41
        +6

        If you want to grab coffee and take your sweet ass time, you go to somewhere less busy with a lot of free seats like maccas.

        Not somewhere with a lot of people waiting to be seated.

        • Diji on 12/09/2022 - 13:42
          +5

          If they want to enjoy their coffee, Macca's isn't a very good choice.

    • Daz91 on 14/09/2022 - 16:17

      Never been to Europe have you? That’s literally ALL they do at cafes.

  • cookie2 on 11/09/2022 - 19:03
    -1

    100% out of line UNLESS it was communicated prior to that there was a requirement for each diner to order a main. That's the only situation where this would be ok, but still really poor considering they would've made a good profit margin on the bottle of wine anyway. Complain on fb and google. People should know this before they choose to dine at a place that treats consumers like that.

    • GOCAT9 on 11/09/2022 - 19:48
      -2

      thanks, absolutely nothing of the sort communicated to us at ANY time!

      • cookie2 on 11/09/2022 - 20:03

        They're just crap. You really should name and shame as it's the best way to ensure that others aren't caught out. I understand why you stayed and it sounds like it's a lesson learnt and you wouldn't do it again. Don't be hard on yourself, life is all about learning. :)

        • TilacVIP on 13/09/2022 - 09:14
          +2

          Agree, effing disgrace how some businesses are starting to operate. Mininum spend, minimum orders, service charges added to the bill, even the idea of tipping is starting to enter the equation.

          What's next, charging per minute of the amount of time you occupy a table.

          Just be selective where you go & give other businesses that play these shenanigans the bird.

          • TheMindsetTraveller on 14/09/2022 - 22:17

            @TilacVIP: There is ticketed dining now …. i.e you need to buy a ticket just to get a reservation, then when you get there, you pay on top for your food and drinks :O

  • [Deactivated] on 11/09/2022 - 19:50

    Order 2 meals, eat 1, return the other.

  • endotherm on 11/09/2022 - 20:06
    +3

    Think of it this way — 20 people rock up and take up multiple tables. They order one meal between everybody because they just want to snack and pick at the food. Restaurant is only prepared to permit 2 people to sit and share the same meal. Restaurant now has to wear 18 unpaid places being taken up, preventing other potential customers from consuming a meal. The restaurant has to wear washing additional plates and cutlery, glasses, tablecloths and napkins, provide free salt and pepper and condiments, and maybe even free bread/breadsticks per person… The cook is under-worked for the night, but has to be paid the same wages from the owner. Raw food bought in anticipation of being cooked goes unused and potentially thrown out. Waitstaff still have to serve 20 people, bringing free water, cutlery and empty plates, then clear up after everyone leaves. I doubt each person is going to leave a $10 tip. It all adds up. I think it is fair and reasonable to impose a limit on "freeloaders". The restaurant is a business, trying to make money by serving meals to paying customers. It's not Maccas, where tables and chairs are provided as a courtesy. They make their money when you order the food. Whether you take-away or eat-in is built into their business model.

      • [Deactivated] on 12/09/2022 - 23:03
        +1

        It’s normal, it’s just unusual for people to have a sook.

        Businesses are there to make a profit and not there for long if they don’t.

        As long as, like in OPs case people are told before they order, it’s fine. It’s reasonable people at a restaurant for dinner or lunch, actually order dinner or lunch, and depending on the state and particular liquor license it can be illegal to serve alcohol without a substantial meal.

    • Daz91 on 14/09/2022 - 16:22

      Not my problem. Do you feel obligated to buy a car after spending hours at a dealership test driving all the various models? Do you feel bad walking out of said dealership without spending a dollar? Do you feel bad trying on clothes and deciding not to buy anything? Do you feel bad meeting a friend for coffee at a cafe and not buying lunch? Do you feel bad getting a tradie over for a free quote and deciding not to go ahead? Ridiculous logic.

    • p1 ama on 11/09/2022 - 22:13
      +14

      I would have launched a tirade at the Muppet and left

      Why would you launch into a tirade at a waiter who's probably some high school kid paid $10/hr and has no say over the policies set by the management of the restaurant?

      I'm glad this sort of behaviour makes you feel more like a man, muppet.

        • thrillhouse on 12/09/2022 - 07:43
          +7

          Yuck, you're such an ugly-minded person.

          • slipperypete on 12/09/2022 - 09:24
            +3

            @thrillhouse: I second that

            I can only imagine how much saliva this person has eaten from their restaurant behaviour

        • p1 ama on 12/09/2022 - 08:22
          +4

          Did you get bullied as a child?

        • Sleeqb7 on 13/09/2022 - 12:47

          What an overwhelmingly braindead take.

    • apiecost on 11/09/2022 - 23:11
      +11

      Your GP can prescribe something to reduce your anger - it doesn't seem normal to me.

    • ripesashimi on 12/09/2022 - 01:31
      +8

      So stupid to go after the poor employees. They work there. They don't make the rules.

  • Archi on 11/09/2022 - 21:25
    +1

    I would have walked out and waited for the food to come then come back in and sit down.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 11/09/2022 - 21:37

    i lean towards a 'No' because i feel like it is 'poor' service but i voted 'Yes' for the sheer fact you should of just walked out, not moan about it on here

    but if a restaurant told me this i'd be no worries im out of here

  • apiecost on 11/09/2022 - 23:09
    +7

    If your butt is occupying a space, then you have to order a meal in my opinion. But it's not costing them anything you say? Try it next time you go to the cinema.

  • Drakesy on 11/09/2022 - 23:55
    +5

    How i see it is you're renting the seat
    The restaurant. If the restaurant isnt getting a return on it then theyre within their rights.

    If you only wanted a drink shouldve gone to a wine bar

  • Surtr on 12/09/2022 - 00:47
    +7

    Was it a succulent Chinese meal?

    • The Value on 12/09/2022 - 18:48
      +3

      2 succulent Chinese meals*

      • Surtr on 12/09/2022 - 18:49
        +2

        hahaha, 3 or get out!

        • yokel on 13/09/2022 - 20:52
          +1

          this is democracy manifest

  • Dack Smith on 12/09/2022 - 00:52
    +5

    Private venue

    If you don’t want to abide by their request, you can leave at any time

    Did they hold a gun to your face?

    • GOCAT9 on 12/09/2022 - 15:11

      Of course not silly, if they did they would be in jail by now!

      • happydude on 12/09/2022 - 15:13

        You'd rat on them for that too aye?

  • Mysterious on 12/09/2022 - 04:44
    +7

    I think it is common courtesy to order a meal if you're going to sit down in a restaurant, especially on a Saturday night where business peaks. It is a reasonable request really. If it was a bar it would be unreasonable, but this is a restaurant.

  • Daddy Chill on 12/09/2022 - 06:54
    +2

    The OP sounds like my father in law who goes to famcy restaurants only to buy soup amd walk out with a toothpick in his mouth lile he just ate a wagyu steak

    • JimB on 12/09/2022 - 09:44
      +5

      I'm sure there's plenty of other stories about your FIL that I'd find amusing.. do share. Please.

    • GOCAT9 on 12/09/2022 - 15:13
      -2

      If that's what he wants then who are you to deny him?

    • Plasma on 12/09/2022 - 22:38

      Kenny Bania certainly doesn't consider soup a meal

  • Mugsy on 12/09/2022 - 07:21
    +1

    Did you get a doggy bag at least?

    • GOCAT9 on 12/09/2022 - 15:14

      yes, but we were pleasantly surprised when we weren't charged for it as sometimes happens!

  • ukulele on 12/09/2022 - 07:26
    +1

    pretty interesting re the main. Whats to say you guys weren't going to order 3 bottles of wine (which is where the margin is)? From time to time I do see minimum spends, but minimum main courses is a bit odd.

  • nwa on 12/09/2022 - 07:35
    +2

    If you weren't that hungry then you could have said no and gone elsewhere. People need to know and practice walking out more often, even after sitting down and looking at the menu no obligation to stay and order.

  • Myone888 on 12/09/2022 - 07:40
    +1

    For 3 pax it’s fair u order 2 mains. Restaurant is doing business

  • tomsco on 12/09/2022 - 08:16
    +3

    Had similar, but without the warning.

    Special occasion so wife and I wanted Indian… but have 3 kids 6 and under.

    Knowing they are fussy, we asked the waiter if we could share the banquet knowing that the kids might not eat any meat. We ordered additional bread/rice.

    Kids gobbled up the bread and rice, but only got maybe one mouthful of chicken into each of the kids (except the baby that ate maybe 3, being a baby).

    At the time they brought out the mains, they bought out another chicken curry. We said we didn't order it, they said we did. There was a bit of back and forth but then the wait staff just never returned.

    Go up to pay at the end, see the bill and we've been charged for the extra chicken curry we didn't order. The owner is cycling through different arguments trying to justify it and when they land on you needed to order more, I replied saying 1) that is the opposite of what their waiter said & 2) if we had to order more, we would not have ordered something we knew the kids were unlikely to eat.

    If we had copped it up front, we could have at least planned accordingly (work out something the kids would eat or leave).

    • Swanson approved on 12/09/2022 - 13:27

      Any chance this was at a 'not your typical indian' restaurant with a quirky name and old colonial photos on walls in Melb

  • happykamper on 12/09/2022 - 08:24
    +2

    Did you at least take home the leftovers?

    • Eeples on 18/09/2022 - 07:57

      OP has said yes.

  • DarkOz on 12/09/2022 - 08:36

    Personally I would have walked out. Was the restaurant packed?

    • GOCAT9 on 12/09/2022 - 15:17

      70% full

      • mrvaluepack on 12/09/2022 - 18:37
        +1

        Then it wasnt warranted.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/09/2022 - 23:08

          I suppose they knew it wasn’t going to fill up later at the time, and they definitely didn’t prep enough food to satisfy their bookings. OP ordered at 5PM, nowhere is full by 5PM.

      • DarkOz on 14/09/2022 - 08:59
        +1

        I could understand it if it was 90% - 100% full and they didn't want to lose revenue. At 70% full this is just a money grab.

  • Mrgreenz on 12/09/2022 - 08:49
    +2

    I can see both sides of the argument, but probably leaning towards the request to order an extra main being fine. You are after all in a resteraunt, not a bar.

    The line must be drawn somewhere, I mean technically 6 people could share a 2 person sharer, if they were all just craving a snack.

    And the resteraunt would forgo 4 seats of main's revenue.

    Seems they want to draw the line at 1 main per seat, logical, I say.

  • Herbse on 12/09/2022 - 08:59
    +4

    Isn't this the same as restaurants that have a minimum charge per person? Or 2 drink minimum at the bar etc.

    Either do it or go elsewhere.

    Restaurant's biggest loss is from large groups of people taking up table space doing nothing and just faffing on their phone while potential paying customers walk by because there's no free tables.

  • jonkvh on 12/09/2022 - 09:03
    +1

    Who goes to a restaurant and doesn't want to eat? Maybe try this next time… order entrees instead.

    • GOCAT9 on 12/09/2022 - 10:35
      -2

      Since when have you started being told what to order and what not to order? Maybe we didn't like any of the entrees but liked the main courses!!

  • Silly-sausage88 on 12/09/2022 - 09:19
    +7

    If they demanded you order 1 per person Id understand but sharing 1 main meal between 3 is kinda understandable.

    If you just wanted to go somewhere to drink wine and wasnt hungry should have just gone to a bar and got some bar snacks - esp if it was peak hour.

  • gromit on 12/09/2022 - 09:39
    +4

    mixed feelings, not an unreasonable request, but probably should have it posted somewhere. Expecting to go to a restaurant on peak time of week and doing this is a pretty crappy thing to do to businesses that have been struggling to survive, hell for quite a while many of them had to require prepayment per head for a booking to prevent from going broke with people that did this sort of thing when capacity limits were in place.

    • GOCAT9 on 12/09/2022 - 10:36
      -2

      It wasn't peak time, we ordered at 5pm and we were told to be out by 7pm!!

      • gromit on 12/09/2022 - 10:50
        +2

        that is pretty much on the border of and in peak time, 6-9 on a saturday. To put in to perspective, many restaurants make ALL their profits in the peak time slots and hence the desire to maximise it, outside of those slots they are at best breaking even.

  • foxmulder on 12/09/2022 - 09:54
    +1

    Imagine you go to a restaurant with a family of 6-7 - you gotta make sure every single one of them has a need to eat something - this doesn't make sense isn't it? What if you on the way and find out one of them is not hungry, thus instead of going to a restaurant, you go to fast food instead? And I'm sure those fast food establishment want to be treated the same way as a restaurant right?

  • Canberralad92 on 12/09/2022 - 10:01
    +9

    It's kind of cheap and in bad taste to take up a table for 4 on a weekend trading day (not many places have 3 person tables) and order 1 meal.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join