Or as James May described it, “sick with cheese on top”.
2 Likes
My guess would be the court would side with the patron and make the restaurant honor the price they quoted. Taking advantage of a patron’s visual disability to gouge them via a non-standard way of reading a price, knowing the patron couldn’t read the price for themselves, violates the ADA at the very least. The meaning of what thirty-seven fifty means has a well established commonly agreed value. The patron has the ADA, and bait and switch, and consumer protection laws, contract laws, all on their side. I cannot think of a single law that would favor the restaurant in this case.
Similar cases have been tried against companies taking advantage of the elderly in similar manners, every one that I know of has not only ruled in favor of the customer, they’ve given the business a pretty hefty fine.
2 Likes
“Would you like to smell the bottle cap, sir?”
3 Likes
Chateau de Tetrapak.
3 Likes
Ah bwv812! There you are.
Isnt there some concept in contract law that states that, in cases like this, that there has to be an understanding of what the price means and that language like “thirty-seven fifty” is insufficient if it can be assumed that “thirty-seven fifty” means $37.50?
Or if a menu does not have prices you cant just charge an exorbitant fee - the expectations of both parties have to be taken into account?
2 Likes
Even simpler, he should just pay them thirty seven fifty. Problem solved.
There is no sufficient excuse for the staff’s use of equivocal language given the fact that the restaurant sells wine in a range of prices that includes both possibilities.
2 Likes
IANAL, but it does seem there was no meeting of the minds on price, and that it was the restaurant’s fault for using equivocal language. If the waitstaff really did say thirty seven fifty then the onus should be on them to have to accept that amount as payment in the interpretation most favorable to the customer, ie $37.50.
3 Likes
That’s likely sold as “prepared cheese product” or something similar in the US as well. “American cheese” is a controlled FDA designation, and from what I recall all the processed cheese products that Kraft sells and that people colloquially call American cheese don’t meet the requirements.
(They actually don’t meet the FDA requirements for “processed cheese product” either, hence why their products are labelled “prepared cheese product” or similar — the latter is not a description for which the FDA maintains a list of requirements.)
This story is totally fishy, expensive wines are usually in the “super expensive wine book” and when dining its fairly clear that you are looking at it, heck it has a 30k$ petrus, that should give you a “hint”
In general if you want to spend 30$ on a wine you ask the waiter for a 30$ bottle of merlot or whatever.
Where is the picture of “Joe” and his bill? They went for a stock picture of a bottle of wine.
2 Likes
This one has the receipt:
Also gives the restaurant’s side better.
3 Likes
If the price was $3750.00 they should have said thirty seven fifty and zero cents.
1 Like
@daneel thanks for sharing those links.
apparently the guy ordering wasn’t the only one who misunderstood, so did everyone else in the dinner party as well as the people at the next table.
3 Likes
Yeah, that the waitress would suggest the most expensive wine on the menu is pretty shady.
1 Like
The Irish coffee might get cold if you don’t live there and the Heaven and Hell cake could also be impractical.
2 Likes
That’s right. I said “I ain’t giving you no tree-fitty you goddamn Loch Ness monster! Get your own goddamn money!”
I gave him a dollar.
She gave him a dollar.
I thought he’d go away if I gave him a dollar.
Well of course he’s not gonna go away, Nellie! You gave him a dollar, he’s gonna assume you got more!
2 Likes
You must not listen to commercial radio much (ok, I don’t either) but here in Florida, at least, it’s done all the time–they don’t want to take the time in their 30 second spot to say all those extra syllables (or–they’re assuming it sounds cheaper to leave off the “thousands”). “IT’S THE SPRING TIME SUMMER SALES EVENT!!! EVERYTHING MUST GO! Get a 1979 Pacer for just 17-6. That’s right! SEVENTEEN-SIX!”
Admittedly, sometimes you are left wondering where the comma goes.
Yeah, but… 1.) Was the waitress aware of his nearsightedness? 2.) Does she admit to only quoting the price as he said?
If either are disputed, good luck proving any wrong doing on the restaurants part. The diner was holding a menu with the price clearly printed on it. I haven’t read anywhere that he told her he couldn’t read–just that he didn’t know anything about wines. (His vision problem comes as a quoted aside when recounting the incident, but he doesn’t ever say he told her about it.)
He presumably managed to order his meal from the menu without aid from her in seeing the menu. The “host” in their party even states that as the wine was served he knew about the price but chose not to say a word at that time.
The restaurant seems not to be the type to just take the hit for public relations, so they would fight it, and I think win based on their accounting of the incident.
No, he says that he was told the price after the wine was poured (and possibly consumed):
The host said the bottle was already opened and possibly empty when he learned the price, so he didn’t see a reason to say anything.
I agree with you. If you want to abbreviate the price you could say 37 hundred and fifty rather than three thousand seven hundred and fifty and still be understood. The waiter pulled a fast one and I would fight this in court after disputing my credit card.
1 Like
