You go out to dinner with a friend in New York City. The check comes at the end of the meal, but it does NOT include the $30 bottle of wine you ordered and consumed. You are only charged for the food. Would you consider this to be:
(A) A mistake which you should take advantage (say nothing and leave);
(B) An intentional waiver on the part of the restaurant (say nothing and leave); or
(C) A likely mistake which you should correct (call the oversight to the attention of the waiter and pay for the wine.
This is both a moral and a legal question. I am interested in not only what is ethically right, but also what is required under the law.
2006-07-16 06:04:55 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Dining Out ➔ United States ➔ New York City
For what it's worth: I was the patron in this situation (last night). I always always always choose "C." My friend, the attorney, told me that his position is that the restaurant implicitly waived the cost of the wine and we were under no obligation to call this to their attention. I disagree completely
2006-07-16 06:05:11 · update #1
I take A. Sorry.
2006-07-22 22:10:34 · answer #1 · answered by spudric13 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Waiters do leave items off checks in an attempt to enhance their tips. If the item constitutes a major percentage of the check, say, more than 20%, then it's safe to assume it was a mistake, and you should, legally (I'm a lawyer) and morally point it out (C.). But, if the $30 bottle is omitted from a $300 check, its wise to assume the waiter did it for you, and you should increase the tip significantly. Sometimes, they say "the wine was on me" or " ... on the house," sometimes they don't.
2006-07-17 01:51:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I choose (D) A mistake or an intentional waiver ... Who cares? Leave 50% of the cost of the bottle as additional tip. Seriously you're paying $30 for a $9 bottle of wine anyway and you're worried about being fair. You havn't been here long. It's kinda sweet.
2006-07-19 22:59:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would call the oversight to the attention of the waiter, and if the restaurant did waive he would say. It would be one thing if it was a dollar, but 30 is another matter. Technically it would not be illegal as they did not put it on your ticket. The worst thing that they could do is ask if you paid for it and you could explain the situation.
2006-07-16 13:23:00 · answer #4 · answered by ekaty84 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that a court would view not being charged for the wine as the restaurant implying that there was no charge. There is such a thing as common sense.
Morally, I would have called it to the attention of the waiter. Call it good karma.
2006-07-16 13:12:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you should pay for what you got. I would tell the waiter and pay for the wine. It is morally wrong and like stealing not to. Also what if that waiter has to pay for the mistake. Legally the answer is A, but I would always pick C.
2006-07-16 13:10:10 · answer #6 · answered by aggie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely C, unless the manager came to your table and told you that the wine was on the house. The error will be noted and it will come out of the waiter's wages or tips, whichever management can get their hands on fastest.
As for your friend the lawyer, if he was paying, I bet he would have because he wouldn't risk having to hire another lawyer to defend him in court if the restaurant noticed the error as he was leaving and charged him with theft.
2006-07-16 16:17:04 · answer #7 · answered by St N 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Morally you should tell your server about the oversight.Chances are that the wine will come out of his or her pay.
Legally in Toronto if there is a "Dine and dash" situation and the people get caught they are only by law responsible for the food and not the alcohol.
2006-07-16 13:15:38 · answer #8 · answered by Isabel M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A is the morial choice. The freakin' restautant is charging you an arm and a leg on a bottle of wine they bought for a couple of bucks.
Its a doggy dog world and every night you go to a restarurant they are looking to bleed you. You were lucky last night.
2006-07-16 18:32:30 · answer #9 · answered by rbiv5 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wether the restaurant had waived the cost of the wine or not, the fact is if they did not charge you for it, then you have every legal right to walk out without paying. Wether or not you decided to offer to pay for this or not would be your moral decision and you wouldn't leglly be obliged to.
2006-07-16 13:11:21 · answer #10 · answered by 139 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely 'C'. If the restaurant was giving you a free bottle, they'd be sure to tell you - good for business, repeat business, and all that.
You should not choose 'A' because it's stealing, even if it was the waiter's fault.
Your friend sounds unethical.
2006-07-16 13:10:28 · answer #11 · answered by oh kate! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋