Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Splitting bills in restaurant

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 69,024 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Even division or not was never the topic here and isn't a consumer issue. A restaurant refusing to take multiple payments does not prevent accurate bill splitting amongst the diners


  • Options
    #153
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Yeah its up to them how they deal with it. And increasingly they want to deal with the restaurant directly.



    If you're going to pay with card anyway then it's exactly you the same for the restaurant to treat each paying couple/Individual as a separate table and take the orders together. Very simple with the inclination to do it and bring upfront about it.

    No its not. They have to itemise 10 bills and add them up to make sure it makes the total.

    Good knows how the wine is divided.

    You keep claiming there is a demand but also that you are forced by pressure to comply with splitting or have to say at the start they you are handling your own bill. Clearly you are against the tide.


  • Options
    #154
    Dial Hard
    Registered Users Posts: 13,760 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    L1011 wrote:
    Even division or not was never the topic here and isn't a consumer issue. A restaurant refusing to take multiple payments does not prevent accurate bill splitting amongst the diners

    And I've never once even seen a restaurant refuse to take multiple payments. A lot of people on this thread seem to have their knickers in a twist over nothing.

    I eat out a LOT and the general scenario is bill comes, everyone works out what they owe (either an even split or pay for what they had, depending on the group), pay your share by cash or card. Bob's yer uncle.

    Why this is such an inconvenience for some people, I can't fathom.


  • Options
    #155
    andekwarhola
    Registered Users Posts: 4,638 ✭✭✭andekwarhola


    Nesser wrote: »
    What you are really saying is that you are only prepared to socialize with people who are on the same socio-economic level as you that have the same level of disposable income. That associating with the lower classes on a budget is embarrassing and mortifying because they might have an issue with playing towards your fancy dessert., Starter, coffees and cocktails

    If you think publicly bellyaching at length about 10 or 15 quid at a friend's birthday dinner bill (the example I had in mind that I've witnessed a few times) is indicative of some kind of class judgement of friends, please go ahead.

    Ditto all the predictable urban myths about the 1000s of people that always sneak along to group dinners and order 23 steaks and 62 double brandies for themselves on the group bill.


  • Options
    #156
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,783 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    L1011 wrote: »
    Even division or not was never the topic here and isn't a consumer issue. A restaurant refusing to take multiple payments does not prevent accurate bill splitting amongst the diners

    I go to a restaurant on my own, I read the menu and make an order making an implied contract with the restaurant.

    I go with a friend, I read and make an order, contract made. Then my friend makes an order, contract made.

    Nowhere on the menu is it written that only one bill is issued. Have two contracts not been created and should be dealt with separately? Can anyone answer this with a legal reference?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    overshoot
    Registered Users Posts: 3,219 ✭✭✭overshoot


    on page 2 riffmongous
    Denny_Crane wrote: »
    For some restaurant law contract law being used a defence in a criminal case see Guildford v Lockyer [1975] Crim LR 235.

    The table would be joint and severally liable I would imagine. Interestingly (or not) the resturant staff or indeed another patron would be within their rights to arrest you.

    This is a very odd thread :pac:


  • Options
    #158
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,783 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    overshoot wrote: »
    on page 2 riffmongous

    I saw that earlier and unfortunately I don't have full access to the case, but from what I understand that doesn't deal with what I was asking.
    The defendant was one of a group of five persons who went to a Chinese restaurant. He ordered but did not receive the correct dish. Instead he ate some of another dish sent to his table. Having tried the food but not liking it, he left the restaurant without paying. He was convicted of the Theft Act 1968 s. 16(1). This was quashed by the divisional court on the basis that there had been no contracts formed to buy the meal in question. The defendant had not received what he had ordered, I.e. “offered” to purchase. The menu was merely an invitation to treat (As well as an invitation to eat, of course).

    Although it does say that he was taken to court and not the group


  • Options
    #159
    overshoot
    Registered Users Posts: 3,219 ✭✭✭overshoot


    ah sorry! il admit i didnt open it, just assumed it would cover it!


  • Options
    #160
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,783 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    overshoot wrote: »
    ah sorry! il admit i didnt open it, just assumed it would cover it!

    No worries, I think the answer is actually implied there, if the contract was between the table and the restaurant then the restaurant would have taken the group to court over the nonpayment (or it would have just been settled there and then most likely), not the individual. And if the contracts are separate then why should the customer have to accept a merged bill?


  • Options
    #161
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    riffmongous wrote: »
    No worries, I think the answer is actually implied there, if the contract was between the table and the restaurant then the restaurant would have taken the group to court over the nonpayment (or it would have just been settled there and then most likely), not the individual. And if the contracts are separate then why should the customer have to accept a merged bill?

    Joint and severally liable would mean he was responsible for the unpaid bill along with everybody else, individually or not . That case had nothing to do with your claim though, since he could hardly be accused of theft of something he didn't receive.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,783 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    Joint and severally liable would mean he was responsible for the unpaid bill along with everybody else, individually or not . That case had nothing to do with your claim though, since he could hardly be accused of theft of something he didn't receive.

    But he was accused and convicted of theft originally in that case
    The defendant was one of a group of five persons who went to a Chinese restaurant. He ordered but did not receive the correct dish. Instead he ate some of another dish sent to his table. Having tried the food but not liking it, he left the restaurant without paying. He was convicted of the Theft Act 1968 s. 16(1). This was quashed by the divisional court on the basis that there had been no contracts formed to buy the meal in question. The defendant had not received what he had ordered, I.e. “offered” to purchase. The menu was merely an invitation to treat (As well as an invitation to eat, of course)


Advertisement