MMD: Should I pay the bill?

dan_m2k

Candice-Marie wrote: »

If your card transaction HAD processed ok, would you have contacted the restaurant to seek a full/partial refund when you fell ill?

If the answer is no, then I think you should pay the bill in full.

Disagree, just because luck fell on the OP's side doesn't mean that their case for recourse is any less valid. If I'd have paid I might think "life's too short" to chase up a payment with the time and cost of calls and the like but doesn't change the facts.

Cimscate

Personally I can't believe they even let you out the restaurant if they did not think you had paid!!! :beer:

weefatbob

You gave your word to pay. :eek: Tear your hair out, write a forum notice, the shame!!! Eek!

If you are no longer in France, you may be charged extra for transferring a cheque overseas (approx £10, right?). The manager should have realised you're a visitor and searched the bin for the void transaction ticket. There definately would have been one, unless it got covered in food poisoning sauce, and he didn't want to give you a sample for detection (lol).

I'd make double sure it's food poisoning and not a wee morsel of guilt being regurgitated.

When I was growing up, my family was so poor we couldn't afford to pay attention. - Mr. T

Stinley

The two issues are separate. You should have contacted the restaurant earlier to complain and agree a compensation, not waited till now to see if you can get away with not paying for something that you didn't have the guts (pun intended) to do anything about at the time. MInd you I'm pretty spineless about complaining so I'm not blaming you but I would pay if I'd agreed to pay.

Moving on to what you should do now. You should contact the restaurant to say that the payment has not gone though. Tell them about your bad experience and agree with them what to do. They may waive the charge, you may agree to pay a percentage or they may insist on full amount. You can't just not pay and not say anything.

Agree that a fair write up in a review site would be good to warn other travellers but you should say that they did let you not pay in effect!

ViolaLass

As only 'most' of you were ill, can you really be sure that that restaurant was too blame? Did you eat anywhere else on the same day? Could you have caught it some other way? Unless you can prove that it was caused by the restaurant food i.e. you ate nowhere else that day AND did not mix with people at all, both unlikely, then I don't see that you have a leg to stand on.

vokesey

You don't state wether or not you all finished, in which case i'm afraid you should pay, then as another poster said complain and request a refund. Sounds like a very unfortunate situation.

Rob666

go to the doctors, get diagnosed with the food poisoning and sue the restaurant!:beer:

Pellyman

Sorry but I find this difficult to believe. How did you intend to pay a Paris restaurant once you had returned home - by a sterling(£) cheque? The Italians must have been very very optimistic. Also, if you did re-enter your PIN and then found you had paid twice, I'm sure your card company would have refunded one of them.

However, you think you have MORAL dilemma so morally I think you should pay (by whatever means!). You said you would pay, you didn't complain at the time and you were prepared to pay at the time; so what's the problem? You have certainly left it far too late to raise the question of your suspected 'food poisoning' which could, quite easily, have been caused by something else eaten during that day; especially as, apparently, all of you weren't ill.

When sending your 'payment' you could, of course, tell the restaurant about your suspicions and hope your payment isn't processed. If they had received similar complaints they too may be morally inclined to accept your story and waive payment.

itz_2

scotsbob wrote: »

You gave your word, so you pay.

If your word means nothing and you have no moral worth then I guess you would avoid paying.[/LEFT]

Totally agree, you said you would send the money if it wasn't on your statement, it wasn't, so send the money.

If your meal wasn't good enough you should have complained at the time, as regards the illness, you should have sought medical advice and got some proof, you would then have a claim, probably far more than the bill in question.

BrandNewDay

bestyman wrote: »

You should pay. That was the deal. Any complaints should have been raised face to face, not when you are 100s of miles away and there is nothing he can do about it - that is a cowardly act.

If the owner said the transaction was declined why did you not believe him? did you have reason to think he was making it up so that he could take payment twice? Obviously no point in the owner doing this as you would simply claim it back from your bank.

In my business (plumbing) , it has got so bad with dishonest customers that I no longer invoice and will not leave without full payment. As they say " In god we trust - everyone else pays cash".

I agree with this.

You promised to pay, and now you're looking for an excuse to not pay.

The food was bad when you ate it. You didn't have to eat it - you could have refused to eat it and refused to pay for it, then.

Also, you cannot prove that it was that food that made you ill. I think most of the time, food poisoning isn't something you can detect at the time you're ingesting it. Food can look and smell fresh, but if someone in the kitchen didn't wash their hands, you can get sick. Meanwhile, if something actually tastes like it may be harmful to your health, you're a fool to actually eat it.