I really want to know how this story works out. A couple college kids refused to pay an automatically added gratuity at a restaurant which provided terrible service. Now it's going to trial as a criminal case.
Personally, I'm rooting for the kids. Any lawyers out there think they have a case? Or don't? I'd content the automatic addition of a gratuity for service constitutes a promise by the establishment to provide acceptable service, a promise the students acted upon in good faith by ordering off the menu in a group of 6 or more as clearly stated. If the establishment didn't follow through, the students shouldn't still be on the hook for services rendered--or in this case, not rendered.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Very interesting question. I think it depends on two things: how clear was the policy (e.g. was it explicitly stated on the menu, which the story says is was), and secondly, what was so terrible about the service? "Acceptable service" is a really vague term that isn't easily defined. Personally, I agree more with the restaurant (assuming it was clearly defined AND they didn't do anything particularly egregious).
Post a Comment