Toby Carvery charged sunday prices on a monday

System

Although I think the OP should get the monetary difference back, I do think the flaw in the argument is the fact that they were given a menu with the Sunday Prices on.

I realise the sign is misleading and probably violates the law but on arrival at the restaurant they were sat down and given a menu with the price of the carvery on it.

The OP must take some personal responsibility for ignoring that. While the restaurant should amend the sign to exclude Bank Holidays.

I suspect the fact the OP ignored the menu will be what Trading Standards have come back with, if the response is as expected not in the OP's favour.

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

Although I think the OP should get the monetary difference back, I do think the flaw in the argument is the fact that they were given a menu with the Sunday Prices on.

That would be a reasonable argument were it not for that fact that, by it's very nature, a carvery is somewhere you can very easily order without any reference to the menu.

I realise the sign is misleading and probably violates the law but on arrival at the restaurant they were sat down and given a menu with the price of the carvery on it.

Again, a valid point if reference to the menu were necessary to order.

If I went into an Indian Restaurant I knew and ordered without reference to the menu I would accept full responsibility if the price had risen since my last visit.

If, on the other hand, they had a sign saying "Sunday Buffet All you can eat £5", then it would be their responsibility if they wanted to charge a higher price and that was only indicated on the menu.

The OP must take some personal responsibility for ignoring that.

He has always done so.

However, that does not alter the legal position which will be based on the necessary elements to form a contract.

I suspect the fact the OP ignored the menu will be what Trading Standards have come back with, if the response is as expected not in the OP's favour.

I will be extremely surprised if the response is not in the OP's favour.

All the elements for the formation of a legally binding contract were present without any reference to the menu.

Sheldon_Cooper

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Why should a customer have to assume that everything they see is incorrect?

This strikes me as the fundamental point that all the people who somehow blame the OP are missing. They seem to expect that someone would ignore the main sign which shows no hint or evidence that it may be incorrect and instead take note of something else which evidently *is* incorrect. (The Sunday menu being on the table on a Monday. The tired old "everyone knows" mantra is just pointless posturing. Evidently everyone does not know.

meer53

Sheldon_Cooper wrote: »

This strikes me as the fundamental point that all the people who somehow blame the OP are missing. They seem to expect that someone would ignore the main sign which shows no hint or evidence that it may be incorrect and instead take note of something else which evidently *is* incorrect. (The Sunday menu being on the table on a Monday. The tired old "everyone knows" mantra is just pointless posturing. Evidently everyone does not know.

Fair comment - BUT, if you sat down and saw the Sunday menu was on the table, would you not think to yourself " Ah, i forgot, it's bank holiday today" ??

Or would you just wait till after you'd eaten then make a complaint ? Why not question it before you order ?

What people on the forum are saying is that the OP's reaction is way over the top.

System

Sheldon_Cooper wrote: »

This strikes me as the fundamental point that all the people who somehow blame the OP are missing. They seem to expect that someone would ignore the main sign which shows no hint or evidence that it may be incorrect and instead take note of something else which evidently *is* incorrect. (The Sunday menu being on the table on a Monday. The tired old "everyone knows" mantra is just pointless posturing. Evidently everyone does not know.

I wouldn't usually be so petty but as you like to reference the English of my posts. Are you at any point planning on closing those brackets?

System

I would just like to know TS's response. They've got back to him (which is a very impressive turnaround).

We are all now just waiting to see what they have said!

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

I wouldn't usually be so petty

Yes you would.

Are you at any point planning on closing those brackets?

That is extremely petty because all you are doing is pointing out a simple one character error in an attempt to 'get back' at someone. Which just makes you look childish and petulant.

Earlier in this thread, you posted: "In the people that object to you defence."

Which is complete gibberish. And you never did explain what you meant.

Anyone can still understand something where a bracket is omitted at the end of a sentence. I doubt anyone knew what you meant by the sentence quoted above and you have not even had the courtesy to edit and correct it so that later readers might actually see something comprehensible.

goater78 wrote: »

I would just like to know TS's response. They've got back to him (which is a very impressive turnaround).

We are all now just waiting to see what they have said!

Yes, it will be interesting.

pianoplayer

In consideration of Goaters plight, and not being in possession of the facts as to how high the sofa is that he is possibly precariously perched on the edge of, I do think it only fair that I tell everyone the outcome.

TS visited the said Toby Carvery and having witnessed the sign went in to the business to have a chat with management. Apparently they approach this under criminal law while consumers approach this under civil law. I think it is fair to say they took the complaint seriously rather than as a 'trivial', or 'laughable' or 'pointless' exercise.

TS looked at the signage within the property and the menus, none of which were clear or specified the distinction of a Bank Holiday Monday as different to a Monday. Nor had they been, were they sufficiently clear, that they countered the original entreat, which was clear and without any clear disclaimer.

TS looked at out of date Menus that were clearer about excluding Bank Holiday, but these had been withdrawn. Nevertheless the mention on a Menu in-itself would not have overridden the original offer to entreat on the sign outside.

TS considered that a person or persons could have driven past the sign, noted it and living some way out of the locale, could have decided on the basis of that sign to drive in specially for a meal based on the price advertised. Had they then not been informed of a variation to the advertised price they would have expected and had a right to expect the price as advertised to be honoured.
To not put a disclaimer on the sign and then to mention a variation before ordering would also have put this person at a disadvantage, having been attracted by the sign, incurred a cost traveling in, with an expectation of a meal for a perceived price, then although they had the choice to refuse the new price they would still have been disadvantaged, by the the advertised price not specifying a disclaimer equally clearly.

They considered the cost of difference for a party of 5 as sufficiently different to expectation as also of merit, particularly in light of the economic climate and difficulties some people might have. The cost of this increase could have been significant for a family, they may not have had the means or ability to fight this and been left for them considerably out of pocket.

TS raised the issue that a consumer had also been denied their consumer rights, that the consumer had been unfairly treated in reasonably expecting an outcome that was fair. The restaurant concerned mentioned to TS that there had been several complaints and together with contacting Head Office they discussed with TS a solution.

It would appear that Tobys have decided that henceforth Bank Holiday Monday Prices will be the same price as any other Monday, in light of other complaints and because of this visit by TS and to prevent any further incidents.


TS won't give a response in writing and the above is the situation to the best of my knowledge and memory that reflects the conversation with TS.

I have yet to receive a formal response from Tobys, from TS I have an expectation of one that will be offered, when I do I will name the restaurant and invite you all to the public apology

Azari

Exactly what one would expect on the basis of contract law.

They seem to have gone a bit further on the basis of other consumer protection legislation.

System

Azari wrote: »

Yes you would.



That is extremely petty because all you are doing is pointing out a simple one character error in an attempt to 'get back' at someone. Which just makes you look childish and petulant.

Earlier in this thread, you posted: "In the people that object to you defence."

Which is complete gibberish. And you never did explain what you meant.

Anyone can still understand something where a bracket is omitted at the end of a sentence. I doubt anyone knew what you meant by the sentence quoted above and you have not even had the courtesy to edit and correct it so that later readers might actually see something comprehensible.



Yes, it will be interesting.

You do love getting involved in arguments that don't reference you at all. Any neutral party will see it was Sheldon who originally decided to start a pointless argument