Complaint about a security at a pub

tendjose

Hi,

Booked a table in a pub by email, was the first to arrive before my friends, so was alone.

The security didn't let me in, strangely...Of course I was there 5 minutes trying to get in, as this is an unfair situation. Anyway when my friends arrived, we went to another pub, which makes me look bad as the group organizer.

Today had some friends in the same pub with a booked table already inside, called one of them to come outside to get me just in case, and the security says I was abusing of him last time (which is a lie).

I asked for the manager. The manager came, I explained the situation, the security says I had no booking, I offered me to show the booking and confirmation emails to the manager on my phone, and the manager just refused. I asked if I couldn't get in never again and he confirmed.

Since I have proofs, I also filmed the conversation with the manager, and since this is not a normal "blocking" by the security, since I had a booking, I ask if and to whom is worth to make a complain.

Keep in mind that the manager is not the owner, this is a big pub that can have their reputation damaged, and I cannot accept be marked as a "bad guy" unfairly forever.

Thanks

esforum

manager then owner, thats pretty much it really. If they choose to ignore your complaint (which they probable will if its a busy always full boozer) then thats that. If its a place that struggles to fill the owner might care but I doubt it.

me_irl

If you don't get anywhere, resort to Social Media (fb / twitter / youtube)... maybe Joe first. YT will let you blur faces.

https://youtube.googleblog.com/2012/07/face-blurring-when-footage-requires.html

tendjose

me_irl wrote: »

If you don't get anywhere, resort to Social Media (fb / twitter / youtube)... maybe Joe first. YT will let you blur faces.

https://youtube.googleblog.com/2012/07/face-blurring-when-footage-requires.html

You Tube with the name of the pub, and the reservation and confirmation emails attached, no?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Don't mean to be a dick here but seriously whats the issue?
Yeah it's annoying and frustrating you didn't get in or that you're not welcome back, but management have the right to refuse admission. That can be because you were in trouble before or because they don't like the shoes you're wearing. You have no right to be automatically let into a premises.

2nd of all, why would you belittle yourself, beg someone to let you in to spend your money in an establishment where you were treated badly? I'd rather go somewhere that didn't make me feel bad about myself and appreciated my custom.

Build a bridge dude

tendjose

I thought anyway I could bring this to a solicitor, since I was organizing something with friends they accepted me by email and they changed their word screwing the work I had organizing the group.

Even more since I cannot go in there anymore, this for me is discrimination.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Oh my god, are you serious? They held a table for you. That's it. They haven't broken a contract. There has to be acceptance and consideration. Did you pay for them to hold the table? You know there's people with real problems out there, just be thankful you're not one of them.

tendjose

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Don't mean to be a dick here but seriously whats the issue?
Yeah it's annoying and frustrating you didn't get in or that you're not welcome back, but management have the right to refuse admission. That can be because you were in trouble before or because they don't like the shoes you're wearing. You have no right to be automatically let into a premises.

2nd of all, why would you belittle yourself, beg someone to let you in to spend your money in an establishment where you were treated badly? I'd rather go somewhere that didn't make me feel bad about myself and appreciated my custom.

Build a bridge dude

The thing is not to beg to get in. Of course I don't want that.

The thing is that I was humiliated 2 times and these guys deserve a legal punishment.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

No they don't.
If you didn't go back the second time they wouldn't have had the chance to humiliate you. If someone treats you bad, take your custom elsewhere. They didn't do anything to warrant criminal punishment. They didn't break the law. You were refused entry into a private premises, that sucks but it's not illegal

Afroshack

I have a feeling there's a lot more to this story.

tendjose

LexieOnRale wrote: »

No they don't.
If you didn't go back the second time they wouldn't have had the chance to humiliate you. If someone treats you bad, take your custom elsewhere. They didn't do anything to warrant criminal punishment. They didn't break the law. You were refused entry into a private premises, that sucks but it's not illegal

They humiliated me the first time too, and I went there the second time because my friends were there already, ok? This got personal for them...

tendjose

Afroshack wrote: »

I have a feeling there's a lot more to this story.

Nop.

JaMarcusHustle

Did they say why you weren't let in the first night?

R P McMurphy

Maybe try again but this time wear a fake moustache

Afroshack

tendjose wrote: »

They humiliated me the first time too, and I went there the second time because my friends were there already, ok? This got personal for them...

Humiliation is not breaking the law though. You're pissed off, fine but this isn't grounds for discrimination unless they admitted it was because you are black/gay/disabled so I doubt you have any legal recourse. Move on with your life.

2012paddy2012

Agree

discus

Afroshack wrote: »

I have a feeling there's a lot more to this story.

So do I. Is the OP gay/foriegn/trans?

Senna

Were you asked to leave or refused entry to this pub before, or possibly another pub that the security worked at.
Don't believe for one second that they just picked on you for absolutely no reason.

testicle

OP, do you feel you were discriminated because of any of the following:

Gender: this means man, woman or transsexual
Civil status: includes single, married, separated, divorced, widowed people, civil partners and former civil partners
Family status: this refers to the parent of a person under 18 years or the resident primary carer or parent of a person with a disability
Sexual orientation: includes gay, lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual
Religion: means religious belief, background, outlook or none
Age: this does not apply to a person aged under 16
Disability: includes people with physical, intellectual, learning, cognitive or emotional disabilities and a range of medical conditions
Race: includes race, skin colour, nationality or ethnic origin
Membership of the Traveller community.

One eyed Jack

tendjose wrote: »

Hi,

Booked a table in a pub by email, was the first to arrive before my friends, so was alone.

The security didn't let me in, strangely...Of course I was there 5 minutes trying to get in, as this is an unfair situation. Anyway when my friends arrived, we went to another pub, which makes me look bad as the group organizer.

You can't think of any possible reason why you were refused entry? That is strange.

Since I have proofs, I also filmed the conversation with the manager, and since this is not a normal "blocking" by the security, since I had a booking, I ask if and to whom is worth to make a complain.

Keep in mind that the manager is not the owner, this is a big pub that can have their reputation damaged, and I cannot accept be marked as a "bad guy" unfairly forever.

Thanks

At the risk of stating the obvious here, but from a security staff point of view - if it looks like a dick, walks like a dick, and acts like a dick... it's marked as a bad guy, and in your particular case, I would say that now you have no choice but to accept that you are marked as the bad guy forever.

Based on the way you tell the story, I can't see any legal recourse available to you.

Paz-CCFC

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Don't mean to be a dick here but seriously whats the issue?
Yeah it's annoying and frustrating you didn't get in or that you're not welcome back, but management have the right to refuse admission. That can be because you were in trouble before or because they don't like the shoes you're wearing. You have no right to be automatically let into a premises.

2nd of all, why would you belittle yourself, beg someone to let you in to spend your money in an establishment where you were treated badly? I'd rather go somewhere that didn't make me feel bad about myself and appreciated my custom.

Build a bridge dude

Is really the case that booking a table wouldn't be a contract for lack of consideration. It's been long accepted that acts of forbearance/acting to your detriment is valid consideration - Hamer v Sidway [1891] 124 NY 538 and O'Keeffe v Ryanair [2003] 1 ILRM 14. If you book a table for you and your friends, you have acted to your detriment, by organising your night around the fair presumption that a table would be held for you. Could that be considered consideration? Maybe. There might also be an implied term that you're going to spend money in the pub, which can of course be consideration. One might argue that any money is only consideration for the individual purchases. Boella et al, Principles of Hospitality Law (p 171) suggests that restaurants nowadays contemplate suing for no-shows, but are often shy due to the bad publicity. That would suggest that a booking is a contract. And if restaurants were to have a claim against customers for not showing up, I would think that a customer would have a claim against a restaurant (or a pub) for not providing a table as agreed.

If there were no consideration, I was thinking estoppel. The basic elements including representation, reliance and detriment. But then, in this case, we'd be talking about a promissory, so it couldn't be used as a cause of action.

Then, if you did prove your claim, what would it be for? Time/money spent getting ready, cost of travel into the venue, loss of enjoyment etc. And you'd have to attempt to mitigate that loss. So, you'd have to have gone looking for another place to spend your evening. Maybe it wouldn't have been the same - eg, you wouldn't have had a table to yourselves as agreed with this pub, there might not have been any other place like the one you had planned to go to (eg, if it were a specialist type place) etc. Then, you're original claim might be as strong. But, in the end, you'd just have to consider if it'd really be worth taking it beyond a letter of complaint to them and maybe reporting them to the Consumer Agency.

All this discussion is hypothetical for the purposes of debate, anyway. Any actual legal advice for the OP would have to be sought from a legal professional.

qwerticus

I worked as a bouncer for a number of years. The decision may have been the bouncers to make or it may have been from management, both are possible, but it could only have been a bouncer or a manager that decided you were not getting in,

I'm just going to clarify the bouncers position as I see it.

1
You booked a table...the doorman/management met you and decided they did not want to let you in.
What does this mean?
He/they do not want to let you in. He/they doesn't care who you are, how much money you have, how many people you are with, whether or not people from your group are already inside, whether or not you booked a table or not.

2
You were refused entry on a subsequent night "because you gave grief the last time"...
What does this mean?
This means they still don't want to leave you in. Assuming you did not give grief (which is entirely subjective to be honest) then he/they wanted an excuse to refuse you entry, that just happened to be the one that they used on the night.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Things I've witnessed:
People being told that were sober that they were drunk.
People being told they gave me grief when they didn't.
People being told that their ID looks nothing like them when it actually does.
People being told we are closed when we were not.
People being told that we were over 19s/20s/21s/23s because I did not want to let them in.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am not saying that the bouncer was correct or incorrect in your case, I wasn't there so I don't know. What I can say is that it's a difficult job at times, and unless you've been a bouncer, you cannot understand what it's like to be a bouncer and how the door actually works, I'm saying that with the utmost respect for the genuine good nature of most people and I am not trying to be condescending.

When I am refused from a bar, and it has happened, I just go somewhere else, I never care whether or not I'm refused, because they guy on the door is doing a job, whether he is correct or not is irrelevant. I'm sure that from time to time the reasoning is complete bull****, but the result is the same.

When refused, go elsewhere.

JackHeuston

No legal opinion, but hopefully it can help you in the future if this happens again.

I assume this is in Dublin or in another big city? OP I know you wanted to go in that exact pub because it's well known, has a good reputation, everyone talks about it, your friends like it, it's unique... there are dozens of other pubs like that one believe me. And I seriously doubt the best pubs discriminate because of race, religion, etc... If they do, you are the one who doesn't want to enter that place. It's also extremely hard to prove it, I mean, does the security guy at the door ever said anything like you can't enter because you're a [xxx]?

If you're refused entrance, don't act like it's your loss as it will make you look even worse.

I know people who were refused entrance and they didn't look trouble at all, it happens. When they really wanted to visit a certain place, they simply went when there were different security guys at the door, or earlier in the evening when the place is still half empty, and that's it.

Now that you spoke to the manager, I won't expect you to enter that place ever again, or at least until someone else buys it and changes the staff, too. You even recorded the conversation?? Sorry but that's the kind of behaviour that will let you stay out of a pub and will make you look like a fool with your friends.

If you want to look good with your friends, find a venue that you like, be a regular, get to know the staff a bit and don't get in trouble!

esforum

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Hamer v Sidway [1891] 124 NY 538

I dont see how that can have any relevence here

degrassinoel

discus wrote: »

So do I. Is the OP gay/foriegn/trans?

i'd probably have asked if he was under age first, bar may have been over 25's or had a dress code, whatever, besides, the management always reserve the right to refuse admission. They dont need to give a reason.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Is really the case that booking a table wouldn't be a contract for lack of consideration. It's been long accepted that acts of forbearance/acting to your detriment is valid consideration - Hamer v Sidway [1891] 124 NY 538 and O'Keeffe v Ryanair [2003] 1 ILRM 14. If you book a table for you and your friends, you have acted to your detriment, by organising your night around the fair presumption that a table would be held for you. Could that be considered consideration? Maybe. There might also be an implied term that you're going to spend money in the pub, which can of course be consideration. One might argue that any money is only consideration for the individual purchases. Boella et al, Principles of Hospitality Law (p 171) suggests that restaurants nowadays contemplate suing for no-shows, but are often shy due to the bad publicity. That would suggest that a booking is a contract. And if restaurants were to have a claim against customers for not showing up, I would think that a customer would have a claim against a restaurant (or a pub) for not providing a table as agreed.

If there were no consideration, I was thinking estoppel. The basic elements including representation, reliance and detriment. But then, in this case, we'd be talking about a promissory, so it couldn't be used as a cause of action.

Then, if you did prove your claim, what would it be for? Time/money spent getting ready, cost of travel into the venue, loss of enjoyment etc. And you'd have to attempt to mitigate that loss. So, you'd have to have gone looking for another place to spend your evening. Maybe it wouldn't have been the same - eg, you wouldn't have had a table to yourselves as agreed with this pub, there might not have been any other place like the one you had planned to go to (eg, if it were a specialist type place) etc. Then, you're original claim might be as strong. But, in the end, you'd just have to consider if it'd really be worth taking it beyond a letter of complaint to them and maybe reporting them to the Consumer Agency.

All this discussion is hypothetical for the purposes of debate, anyway. Any actual legal advice for the OP would have to be sought from a legal professional.

Sueing for noshows would need to have a contract in place, ie offer and acceptance, which is why people usually pay a deposit or a booking fee by way of securing the booking on both ends,

tendjose

I can see some nationality discrimination there.

Before in the past without reservations, if I have a company of an Irish friend, never blocked.

If going with my "foreign" friends always blocked.

But the best advice is that. Just disapear from that place, because there are lots of pubs around. I believe that if they are doing the same to other people, sooner or later they will have trouble and it's not my problem.

GM228

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Sueing for noshows would need to have a contract in place, ie offer and acceptance, which is why people usually pay a deposit or a booking fee by way of securing the booking on both ends,

I'm not sure if you are saying paying a booking fee is part of the "offer and acceptance" or it's the third element so apologies if I'm restating what you have said.

Offer and acceptance is seperate and still happens even without a booking fee/deposit. However to be a contract "consideration" is also required which is the booking fee/deposit, on top of that there's the question of the intent of both parties to be legally bound.

So whilst there may have been a valid offer and acceptance, consideration has not passed from the customer to the pub and so no contract exists, and as you point out to sue there would need to be a contract.

TheDoc

tendjose wrote: »

I thought anyway I could bring this to a solicitor, since I was organizing something with friends they accepted me by email and they changed their word screwing the work I had organizing the group.

Even more since I cannot go in there anymore, this for me is discrimination.

Did you recently just land on this planet?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

GM228 wrote: »

I'm not sure if you are saying paying a booking fee is part of the "offer and acceptance" or it's the third element so apologies if I'm restating what you have said.

Offer and acceptance is seperate and still happens even without a booking fee/deposit. However to be a contract "consideration" is also required which is the booking fee/deposit, on top of that there's the question of the intent of both parties to be legally bound.

So whilst there may have been a valid offer and acceptance, consideration has not passed from the customer to the pub and so no contract exists, and as you point out to sue there would need to be a contract.

We're on the same page

nuac

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Is really the case that booking a table wouldn't be a contract for lack of consideration. It's been long accepted that acts of forbearance/acting to your detriment is valid consideration - Hamer v Sidway [1891] 124 NY 538 and O'Keeffe v Ryanair [2003] 1 ILRM 14. If you book a table for you and your friends, you have acted to your detriment, by organising your night around the fair presumption that a table would be held for you. Could that be considered consideration? Maybe. There might also be an implied term that you're going to spend money in the pub, which can of course be consideration. One might argue that any money is only consideration for the individual purchases. Boella et al, Principles of Hospitality Law (p 171) suggests that restaurants nowadays contemplate suing for no-shows, but are often shy due to the bad publicity. That would suggest that a booking is a contract. And if restaurants were to have a claim against customers for not showing up, I would think that a customer would have a claim against a restaurant (or a pub) for not providing a table as agreed.

If there were no consideration, I was thinking estoppel. The basic elements including representation, reliance and detriment. But then, in this case, we'd be talking about a promissory, so it couldn't be used as a cause of action.

Then, if you did prove your claim, what would it be for? Time/money spent getting ready, cost of travel into the venue, loss of enjoyment etc. And you'd have to attempt to mitigate that loss. So, you'd have to have gone looking for another place to spend your evening. Maybe it wouldn't have been the same - eg, you wouldn't have had a table to yourselves as agreed with this pub, there might not have been any other place like the one you had planned to go to (eg, if it were a specialist type place) etc. Then, you're original claim might be as strong. But, in the end, you'd just have to consider if it'd really be worth taking it beyond a letter of complaint to them and maybe reporting them to the Consumer Agency.

All this discussion is hypothetical for the purposes of debate, anyway. Any actual legal advice for the OP would have to be sought from a legal professional.

Very interesting. Congrats on your research and erudition.

However from my practical experience as a lawyer I doubt if any practising lawyer would be intersted in running such a case.

Paz-CCFC

esforum wrote: »

I dont see how that can have any relevence here

Would you care to go into detail as to why you believe so?

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Sueing for noshows would need to have a contract in place, ie offer and acceptance, which is why people usually pay a deposit or a booking fee by way of securing the booking on both ends,

I don't think offer and acceptance would be at issue, nor would intention to create legal relations. It would all centre around consideration. My point is that acts of forbearance/detriment are good consideration. In this case, the restaurant/pub are forbearing from their ordinary right to give the table to anyone else by holding it. Likewise, the patrons are acting to theirs by specifically going to this restaurant/pub when they'd normally have the right to go anywhere they please.

nuac wrote: »

Very interesting. Congrats on your research and erudition.

However from my practical experience as a lawyer I doubt if any practising lawyer would be intersted in running such a case.

I agree. But this is a legal discussion forum, so hypothetical debate for purely academic purposes is part and parcel of it.

GM228

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

My point is that acts of forbearance/detriment are good consideration. In this case, the restaurant/pub are forbearing from their ordinary right to give the table to anyone else by holding it. Likewise, the patrons are acting to theirs by specifically going to this restaurant/pub when they'd normally have the right to go anywhere they please.

But surely they must actually receive a benefit and suffer a detriment first to make it a valid contract, not afterwards. A mere promise from one party is neither a detriment to that party, nor is it a benefit to the other.

Also I would have thought that if considering forbearance then there still must be some sort of monetary value attached - i.e "I will pay you a €10 deposit if you promise not give away the table" as opposed to simply "I promise not to give away the table". In that case of a deposit detriment and benefit has occurred before the event making it a contract.

Anyhows, back to the general discussion-if determined to be a contract what does the OP sue for in the case of breach of contract? Damages? If so to what degree etc.

Dial Hard

Paz-CCFC wrote:

Would you care to go into detail as to why you believe so?

I'm guessing because it's a U.S. case and has absolutely no relevance to Irish law.

jimd2

tendjose wrote: »

I can see some nationality discrimination there.

Before in the past without reservations, if I have a company of an Irish friend, never blocked.

If going with my "foreign" friends always blocked.

But the best advice is that. Just disapear from that place, because there are lots of pubs around. I believe that if they are doing the same to other people, sooner or later they will have trouble and it's not my problem.

It does sound like you were badly treated (based on your version of events of course).

Name and shame the place - you have nothing to lose.

Dial Hard

chipsdave wrote:

Didnt read all this thread but the point of "Bouncers" on Pubs brings back some memories to Me , in the Auld so called Celtic Tiger era in my local town Clonakilty practically every pub employed these so called bouncers a really English type of thing in my view , there was always a menacing intimadating atmosphere about the place , bouncers now ?? me arse they are lucky to get a customer in !!!!

Perhaps you should read the thread then.

ted1

The fact that you recorded it would imply to me that your a nuisance and they were right to not let you in.

GM228

ted1 wrote: »

The fact that you recorded it would imply to me that your a nuisance and they were right to not let you in.

That's something I'm surprised wasn't picked up on until now, why record it?

To me someone recording such an incident sounds like someone is expecting the incident, unless of course the incident happened whilst filming something other.

Elemonator

I had the same problem with a well known pub. I didn't even ring the management/owners to complain, I put it to them straight that I am putting it up on the media and they should get their side in. They backed down immediately. Instead of being a mundane complaint which they recieve among many daily, my threat would extend and hurt their business. The absolute ****** of a security guard (who was extremely uneducated, looking for a power trip) was let go and the manager was fired or transferred (I have heard differing stories).

If you are very pis*** about it, consider the threat of a defamation case. I'm not sure what the law is like regarding security guards and it can be a bit of a grey area but nonetheless he tarnished your good name publicly by claiming you were abusive.

Tzardine

Elemonator wrote: »

...... nonetheless he tarnished your good name publicly by claiming you were abusive.

Unless of course the Op was abusive.

By their own description, they were unfriendly and argumentative at least.

Timberrrrrrrr

Elemonator wrote: »

I had the same problem with a well known pub. I didn't even ring the management/owners to complain, I put it to them straight that I am putting it up on the media and they should get their side in. They backed down immediately. Instead of being a mundane complaint which they recieve among many daily, my threat would extend and hurt their business. The absolute ****** of a security guard (who was extremely uneducated, looking for a power trip) was let go and the manager was fired or transferred (I have heard differing stories).

If you are very pis*** about it, consider the threat of a defamation case. I'm not sure what the law is like regarding security guards and it can be a bit of a grey area but nonetheless he tarnished your good name publicly by claiming you were abusive.

Put what up on social media exactly?

If op decided to post a video on Facebook which showed the doorman faces and saying one thing when in fact (possibly) something else has gone on would he not then be defaming the security?

Arbiter of Good Taste

Elemonator wrote: »

I had the same problem with a well known pub. I didn't even ring the management/owners to complain, I put it to them straight that I am putting it up on the media and they should get their side in. They backed down immediately. Instead of being a mundane complaint which they recieve among many daily, my threat would extend and hurt their business. The absolute ****** of a security guard (who was extremely uneducated, looking for a power trip) was let go and the manager was fired or transferred (I have heard differing stories).

If you are very pis*** about it, consider the threat of a defamation case. I'm not sure what the law is like regarding security guards and it can be a bit of a grey area but nonetheless he tarnished your good name publicly by claiming you were abusive.

Wow, you're a lovely fella altogether.

Elemonator

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Wow, you're a lovely fella altogether.

Well hey what can I say, it ain't an insult if its a fact (my reference to the bouncer).

It is the opinion of many locally. I do respect people but not this particular individual. He was also quite the misogynist.

Paz-CCFC

GM228 wrote: »

But surely they must actually receive a benefit and suffer a detriment first to make it a valid contract, not afterwards. A mere promise from one party is neither a detriment to that party, nor is it a benefit to the other.

That's a good point. So, the issue of past consideration could come into play. I would argue that they are agreeing to undertake this forbearance at the time of the contract, so it wouldn't be past consideration.

Also I would have thought that if considering forbearance then there still must be some sort of monetary value attached - i.e "I will pay you a €10 deposit if you promise not give away the table" as opposed to simply "I promise not to give away the table". In that case of a deposit detriment and benefit has occurred before the event making it a contract.

The value needn't be monetary. In O'Keeffe v Ryanair, surrender of anonymity/privacy was sufficient consideration. Even just allowing one's name to be used in a promotion would be valid. So, I think it would be possible that going to the trouble of keeping a table free and going to the trouble of going to a particular restaurant as agreed could amount to consideration. I am using parallel caselaw to back up the point, so if there is something more direct on, I stand corrected.

I would say, that in practical terms, it's probably better for a restaurant just to get a booking fee. As mentioned above, the bad publicity from taking a case might just make it not worth it, compared to just retaining a deposit.

Anyhows, back to the general discussion-if determined to be a contract what does the OP sue for in the case of breach of contract? Damages? If so to what degree etc.

Reliance loss - the cost/trouble that the party went (eg, transport) to in reliance of the contract - damages for inconvenience (Dinnegan & Dinnegan v Ryan) and loss of reputation (Malik v BCCI) are possible remedies. Not that I'm suggesting someone taking such a case against a pub would be successful.

On the flip side, a restaurant might be able to claim on the same grounds for a no-show - losing money from keeping a table free, loss of reputation by having to turn potential customers away when there's an unused table etc.

Dial Hard wrote: »

I'm guessing because it's a U.S. case and has absolutely no relevance to Irish law.

You do realise that cases in other common law jurisdictions can be persuasive and often shape the decisions of Irish courts, right? It's seen as relevant enough to be mentioned in the leading Irish contract law textbook.

zoobizoo

Stop going to places with bouncers on the door.

The best pubs don't have them.


As a manager once said to me before after I was refused entry:

"look, I can tell that you're a decent guy and the bouncer shouldn't have refused you entry but he made the call and I am not going to/can't change that decision as he will lose face....... come back some other time and there'll be no issue"