Complaint about a security at a pub

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"