Atkins nitwits get booted from buffet

pgwenthold said:


I include "people who want to go back for 18ths" within "anyone." Hence, they have reserved the right to refuse service to the person going back for their 18th helping. They don't have to, but they can.
Click to expand...

Sorry, if you enter into a contract for "all you can eat", not "all which I think is reasonable for you to eat" or "all that the average person can eat", then you suffer the consequences of doing so. You can refuse service to someone you think will abuse it, but you can't agree to it and then fail to deliver your side of the bargain.

In my earlier example, I have reserved the right to provide service to people who want more than one delivery of widgets. Does that entitle me to keep the cash for the whole order even though I didn't include that in the contract or tell you in advance?
 
Your widget example is concerned with a finite number pre-agreed upon. And contracts for things like that typically have extra language empasizing performance, just in case there is more than one possible meaning for a phrase.

When there is no agreement on what 'all you you can eat' means, there is no specific contract. So intent and reasonableness form the definitions..try proving in a court of law that the restaurant reasonably intended to go broke.

The folks who thought AYCE meant every scrap of roast beef in the place, were obviously not of the same mind as the manager, and any contract, even an implied one, requires a 'meeting of the minds' to be legally enforceable, right?

And no one has established that these slices weighed less than one ounce...if these people really were going for a record, each plate could have held several ounces times 12 trips (going on 13) times 2 for the couple.

Now if the place had been named 'Guiness Book of World Records AYCE Glutton's Challenge', ,or even the 'UpChuck'n'EatSomeMore-a-Rama', I agree that this couple might have a case.

But several pounds of roast beef for the price of 2 buffets?
Nice try folks, sue the lottery for breaking their contract to give you your million bucks while you are at it.
Their advertising clearly says 'you can' be a winner, and shows winners getting millions, right?
(BTW, that one has been tried too) :D

Paul
 
Hey, I've eaten at that very Chuck-a-Rama. My parents live in Taylorsville. The foods ok for buffet.

Damn funny story. :D
 
bjornart said:

Hydrogen, carbon and oxygen, as are carbs, but that's beside the point. They're not broken down to atoms in the digestive system, or the human metabolism, they're broken down into chemically distinctive molecules, with different effects in the human body. If you want to reach true enlightenment you need to acknowledge this. :)
Click to expand...
{sits in lotus position} Ommmmmmmm! :)

I'm not arguing. I understood the first time epepke explained it. I just like pushing cynical's buttons.
 
Cynical said:
Not of carbs, that's for sure. Now what is your point, Zep?
That they both are loaded with calories? That's true....and that's your problem, isn't it - that you are addicted to both?
Click to expand...
Oh yes! I'm addicted to food. I like to eat every single day. It keeps me...what's the phrase I'm looking for here...alive. Funny though. Same goes for most people I meet too. But I guess that fact passed you by.
 
crimresearch said:
...were obviously not of the same mind as the manager, and any contract, even an implied one, requires a 'meeting of the minds' to be legally enforceable, right?
Click to expand...

If so, the contract is null and void. Each party must back out to the full extent possible. That means a return of the eight(?) bucks.

Then again, in this particular case, AYCE was only inferred, never implied.
 
crimresearch said:
Your widget example is concerned with a finite number pre-agreed upon. And contracts for things like that typically have extra language empasizing performance, just in case there is more than one possible meaning for a phrase.

When there is no agreement on what 'all you you can eat' means, there is no specific contract. So intent and reasonableness form the definitions..try proving in a court of law that the restaurant reasonably intended to go broke.

The folks who thought AYCE meant every scrap of roast beef in the place, were obviously not of the same mind as the manager, and any contract, even an implied one, requires a 'meeting of the minds' to be legally enforceable, right?

And no one has established that these slices weighed less than one ounce...if these people really were going for a record, each plate could have held several ounces times 12 trips (going on 13) times 2 for the couple.

Now if the place had been named 'Guiness Book of World Records AYCE Glutton's Challenge', ,or even the 'UpChuck'n'EatSomeMore-a-Rama', I agree that this couple might have a case.

But several pounds of roast beef for the price of 2 buffets?
Nice try folks, sue the lottery for breaking their contract to give you your million bucks while you are at it.
Their advertising clearly says 'you can' be a winner, and shows winners getting millions, right?
(BTW, that one has been tried too) :D

Paul
Click to expand...

Sorry but if you advertise something as "all you can eat" then you take the risk that people will eat a lot. If you don't want to take that risk then don't advertise on that basis. Once you enter into the contract, you deliver your side of the deal - if you failed to specify a maximum number of visits, or that they had to consume cheap food (potatoes, veggies) as well as meat that is your problem. Learn from it for next time.

If you don't like the widget example, what about a golf club. I join and am entitled to an unlimited number of rounds during my membership year. If I then book three tee off times a day for the next six months (limiting those available to other players) can they refuse me access to the course and keep my money?

You appear to be arguing that "All you can eat" has some meaning other than the obvious one. These people were apparently capable of eating 12+ slices of roast beef - you need to explain how that falls outside the definition of "All you can eat".
 
Rob Lister said:


If so, the contract is null and void. Each party must back out to the full extent possible. That means a return of the eight(?) bucks.

Then again, in this particular case, AYCE was only inferred, never implied.
Click to expand...

In my first post I said if this was a limited offer (not an AYCE) served buffet style, then the restaurant has done nothing wrong.
 
charley_bigtime said:
Bottom line is, they were taking the piss and got what they deserved.
Click to expand...

Nope, bottom line is, if it was an AYCE offer, the restaurant screwed up its pricing and was getting what it deserved.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:


Nope, bottom line is, if it was an AYCE offer, the restaurant screwed up its pricing and was getting what it deserved.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't. Read the link provided. I'm right. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom