Underpaid Restaurant Bill

happyoutscan

I'm pretty sure you knew that the drinks had been omitted from the bill. Pay the bloody thing and stop whinging about the restaurant being rude.

Elmer Blooker

Excuse pun but something does not add up.

You left a €30 tip on a €69 bill? Do you always leave an almost 50% tip?

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117978366#Comment_117978366

Indeed.

The drinks bill was €69, the OP paid the food bill.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117974233#Comment_117974233

Not correct. The menu with the prices constitutes the offer. Ordering constitutes acceptance. AOn viewing the menu and ordering the o/p became obliged to pay the prices quoted on the menu. The bill itself is merely a receipt and record of purchase.

SnrInfant

Ok, heres an update for you all, and many thanks for all who took time to reply.

It turns out the bill I paid, included my drinks, was all paid in full by us. That was €160 and we gave a €30 tip. I then left and the women got more wine and drinks and a bill which left out 3 bottles of wine.

Despitye me not being there, the restaurant are demaning my name and number to chase me up for €18 worth of drinks that I didn't even have.

They messed up our seating arrangements at first and thats why it was so messy (according to them). They had 2 people serving and the second waitress apparently forgot to inclde the wine.

My friends are at me to pay because they eat there regularly and don't want any bad blood.

I'm just going to pay the bloody thing, even though they weren't my drinks!!

ratracer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117979090#Comment_117979090

If you had paid all your bill, that’s between you and your mates, and IMO, it’s damn lousy of them to try pin that on you.

The restaurant is definitely overstepping the mark looking for names and numbers of individuals. Their contract is with the person who made the reservation. It’s not for them to decide who pays an individual amount.

mickdw

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117979090#Comment_117979090

I would not call them but call in personally and tell them what's what.

You had your meal and drinks, paid the entire bill and left.

Other members ordered other drinks after the bill had been paid. This amounts to a new customer and a new bill.

Ask them why they seek to contact you and why they think you should pay for drinks had by other customers after you had settled your account with them.

I'm all for paying what's due but the restaurant are taking the piss now.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117979090#Comment_117979090

if you're friends are that concerned about bad blood they should pay the bill themselves. Better yet ask them to get the people who drank the wine to pay. Given the circumstances I certainly wouldn't be paying.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117974340#Comment_117974340

OP doesn't even say that there was a booking; the party could have just walked in.

But, either way, no; booking or no booking, the restaurant's contract is with the diners who order the food and drink.

(And, no, each diner is not liable only for the food and drink that he or she orders; unless otherwise expressly agreed the whole party of diners is collectively liable for the food that the party orders. How the diners sort that out among themselves is their own affair, but it doesn't affect the restaurant's position.)

mrslancaster

I have never heard of a restaurant contacting a customer about something like this. The restaurant made the mistake, it happens. The customer paid the bill presented and a restaurant that cares about customer experience, reputation and repeat business would write off such a small sum when the error was discovered. As another poster pointed out, the cost of the items in question would be much less than the sales price, so very little in this case. Most businesses make mistakes at some point and take the hit. This restaurant need to train staff and put better controls in place to prevent it happening again. Building goodwill instead of using dodgy practices to contact customers would be a better strategy IMO.

miamee

Most businesses of this nature have been 'taking the hit' for 18 months now. I don't think it's too much to ask that people pay for the food and drink they consumed with good grace instead of having to be chased down for it. Non-paying customers are not good for business and not the kind of people you want coming back. I accept that there were mistakes and/or oversights on both parts, customers and restaurant staff.

Anyone who has eaten out over the past while knows well that most waiting staff in any place are young and new to the industry. They are all learning as there has been a mass exodus from the hospitality trade. Every restaurant and cafe are desperately looking for staff. I think if we want to continue to eat out at nice restaurants, we need to treat them well, pay our bills in full and give them a break when it comes to what was obviously a mistake.

If the phone number was taken from the 'contact tracing' list rather than the number of the person who booked the table, it was a big mistake that should be pointed out the restaurant manager.

hullaballoo

👆👆👆 Facts.

screamer

These people are not your friends, friends would not be scabs like that. There’s the biggest lesson in all of this.

iamwhoiam

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117979090#Comment_117979090

So are the women who got the drinks going to give you the €18 or is it €69 ? Or your friends who eat there regularly ? Why on earth would they ask you to pay for others drinks ? Tell them to go in and pay or get the drinkers to give you what is owed

HildaOgdenx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117979090#Comment_117979090

I'm slightly confused. You left, the bill was fully paid, all grand.

Then others had more drinks, but where does the eighteen euro shortfall come from? There were three bottles of wine not included on the second bill, but that can't be only eighteen euro.

Are the people who want you to pay, the same people who consumed the unpaid for drinks?

timetogo1

1: Pay the bill

2: Contact your "friends" that "forgot" to pay for their wine after you left and tell them they owe you €69 or €18 (I don't know which it was)

They ordered the drinks after you left and it was their responsibility to settle up. And in fairness it was the restaurants responsibility to deal with them. You do have the moral ground but you can make it complicated and have arguments or follow the two steps above. That's what I'd do if I'd arranged the dinner. Not sure why it's so complicated.

If they're not your friends then tell the restaurant you had settled up prior to leaving and any drinks consumed were the responsibility of the drinkers.

FishOnABike

Sounds as if you settled your bill in full. The people who had more to drink after you had settled the bill and left should pay for what they drank.

I'd message them directly to let them know the restaurant had been in touch chasing up payment for their drinks and ask them to contact the restaurant to settle their bill.

If they don't do the decent thing I'd message the whole group asking 'whoever' had extra drinks after the bill was settled to contact the restaurant to pay for their drinks as there were three bottles of wine not paid for.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117973810#Comment_117973810

They're calling daily because you haven't bothered to pay up since the previous call.

iamwhoiam

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117986898#Comment_117986898

It wasn’t his bill to pay . Have you read the update ?

Peregrinus

The restaurant presumably doesn't know who left and who stayed. And in any case they will be reluctant to accept that, with a party of diners, each diner is responsible only for a share of the food and drink served up to the point that they left. The default position here is that all members of a restaurant party are jointly and severally liable for all the food and drink served to the party; how they share the cost among themselves is a matter for them, but does not affect the restaurant. Who arrived late, or who left early, doesn't enter into it at all, as far as the restaurant is concerned.

Obviously, those who stayed on, and ordered extra food and drink, should pay for it. If, for whatever reason, the OP has become the point of contact between the restaurant and the party, he should let those who stayed on know what has happened and tell them to settle up. If he doesn't do this, or if he does but they don't pay, the matter is unlikely to go to law. But, hypothetically, if it did, I think the restaurant could probably sue any member or members of the party and recover, and the individual(s) concerned could then seek an equitable contribution from other members of the party, based on what each person actually ordered and/or consumed.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117986966#Comment_117986966

He paid the bill, closed the transaction and left. Any transactions after this point would be a "new" party, surely.

The restaurant were asked for and presented the bill. The OP paid it. The restaurant knew that the previous debt had been settled. It's not on the OP, no present from this point on, that the restaurant began serving other people, subsequently.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117987213#Comment_117987213

Mmm. You might have a point. Let's think this through.

There's a booking in the name of Bloggs. The contract by which a meal is ordered, prepared, served and paid for is a contract between the restaurant on one side and the members of the party jointly on the other; the restaurant does not know or care which member of the party is Bloggs. It's not uncommon for a meal to be ordered in stages - e.g. deserts are ordered after the main course has been consumed; coffee and/or post-prandial drinks may be ordered later again. This isn't a new contract each time, and it's not the restaurant's job to keep track of who orders, who eats or drinks, who arrives late, who leaves early, who is present or absent at any particular point in the evening. The restaurant deals at all times with the group as a whole.

The only difference here is that a bill was delivered part-way through the evening and settled. Does that terminate the relationship so that any further order or orders, and the associated bills, represent a new contract with a different (and smaller) group of diners?

I think maybe you could argue this. But even if Bloggs is one of the group that left before round 2 he's still the nominated point of contact between the restaurant and the group, so the restaurant can deal with him as agent for the group. Maybe the restaurant can recover from him and he can recover from those who stayed on for round 2. Or maybe his obligation is limited to given the restaurant names and contact details for the people who stayed on for round 2, so the restaurant can deal directly with them.

Would his agency for his group not end, when settling the debt? Particularly as it seems that group subsequently broke up.

A couple of people remaining and choosing to open another tab is a new group? Anyone else could have joined after the OP left. He has no responsibility for this new gathering

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117987400#Comment_117987400

If members of the group continued to occupy the same table and order more food and drink, I think the restaurant could argue that this is a continuing arrangement. Particularly - though of course we don't know if this is the case - if it was a "natural" extension of ordering. By which I mean, e.g., ordering deserts after the main course, but asking for an "interim' bill so the the members of the party could sort out their responsibilities to one another so far, since one or two members have to go and won't be contributing to the cost of desert. On this view the restaurant is providing an interim bill as a convenience to the party, to assist them in working out their respective contributions to the overall cost for which they are all still liable.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117987322#Comment_117987322

Everybody at the table is jointly liable for the bill. the bill is paid. the liability is extinguished. what happens after that is a new liability. as the OP had left after the initial liability was extinguished they have no responsibility or liability for what happened afterwards. He isn't responsible for the actions of others. they were a group of people who just happened to be sitting at the same table after the OP left. The restaurant has no right to be calling the OP.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117987459#Comment_117987459

The only liablity that is extinguished when Bill A is paid is the liability for Bill A - obviously. The payment of Bill A cannot possibly extinguish anybody's liability for Bill B.

So the question is, who is liable for Bill B? Is it the people who happen to be sitting at the table when the orders for the items that appear (or should appear!) on Bill B are put in? Or is it all the members of the group who are party to the contract for the meal of which the Bill B items form a part?

You're assuming that separate bills mean separate contracts with separate (even if overlapping) groups, but you only have to state that assumption to realise that it's not obviously true at all, since more than one bill arising under the same contract is a commonplace occurrence in commercial situations.

I think a lot is going to depend on the exact circumstances which lead to a bill being presented before the meal was over, which of course isn't the normal practice. And we don't know what those circumstances were. If it was a case of "We'd like to order dessert, but can we have a bill for the meal so far, since two of us have to go, and we want to work out what they owe?" I'd have no hesitation in saying that this is all one contract. On the other hand, if the meal is over and the bill presented and paid and then two or three people still lingering at the table say "I know we've already paid, but is there any chance we could get another bottle of wine?" it might be different.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117979090#Comment_117979090

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117987529#Comment_117987529

Going by the update provided by the OP it is looks much like the second case than the first.

silver2020

The OP says it was "his friend" that was called, but then says he's getting the calls. Which is it.

Those who consumed the drinks should reimburse you/your friend, but whoever booked the table should pay the restaurant. that will stop the calls.

As for "defamation" - that's ridiculous.

BTW - If the next day you found that the restaurant had OVERCHARGED by €60, I bet you'd be on to them asking for a refund. And if they didn't get back to you, you'd ring them again, and again and again and again.

Jump_In_Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117979090#Comment_117979090

Assuming those bottles were not consumed before you left, those "friends" haven't a leg to stand on. If the correct bill had been issued to them for the bottles they consumed after you left, would they have come back to you the next day looking for you to pay an equal share for drinks you didn't order or consume? No, I don't think so.

If I were you I would say you don't owe anybody for expenses racked up after you had left and settled your share.

Blackjack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117979090#Comment_117979090

Based on this I'd suggest you have an issue with your friends and not the restaurant. They want you to pay for drinks you didn't have because the dine there regularly, and want to continue to do so. Surely the friends that had the additional drinks should be the ones to pay?. The restaurant won't be aware of who left and who didn't, to be fair.