Restaurant booking

ThumbRemote

OlliesDad wrote: »

Isn't this the same as if a person buys in a shop? The purchaser is the contractor. We often see on here when goods are faulty the advice is that the purchaser needs to take up the issue with the retailer?

When buying in a shop the statutory rights can be transferred, as per the 'It's a gift' section of the MSE guide: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-wallet-print

If the person booking a table is booking for (say) 10 people, it's clear that the other 9 places aren't for them. It seems to be the same scenario as booking a hotel via an agency, where your contract is formed with the hotel directly, not with the agency. In this case the person booking a table is acting as an agent for the other diners.

JimmyTheWig

JReacher1 wrote: »

He didn't suggest writing a clear review. He suggested that the OP "trash" the place on tripadvisor etc. I believe that is unacceptable.

I took the comment to mean "trash" the place by writing the same truth that they've written here on tripadvisor.
I didn't take it to mean "trash" the place by making up various stuff about the restaurant on tripadvisor.

Now another poster wants the name of the restaurant (I can only assume for some nasty purpose).

Again my assumption, but I presumed it was (a) so they could avoid the place and (b) anyone googling the restaurant may find it and find out what they are like.

bod1467

ThumbRemote wrote: »

In this case the person booking a table is acting as an agent for the other diners.

Perhaps. But when an agent books a hotel room, it is booked in the name of the person(s) to be staying, not the name of the agent. THIS restaurant booking was almost certainly booked in the name of the person making the booking (so not an agent) or in the name of the company (again not an agent).

(Again ... I am NOT condoning the reprehensible actions of the restaurant, merely clarifying the legal position. The restaurant are legally right but morally wrong).

halibut2209

They are not legally right at all. If a person cannot go, then they have to mitigate their losses. Keeping the entire sum is clearly not doing this.

bod1467

If this is a purely consumer contract then you are correct. However this is a work's party ... we don't know if this may be a B2B contract in effect. (If the company is paying for it then it may well be).

But I concede your point.

bukko

halibut2209 wrote: »

They are not legally right at all. If a person cannot go, then they have to mitigate their losses. Keeping the entire sum is clearly not doing this.

What losses?
There are no losses.
So 2 people less attended, a fact which was notified in advance so there would be no unnecessary costs.
This was a large group booking. If 2 less people had been in the group to start with, the restaurant's income would be the same.

There was less business than there could have been, but there were certainly no losses. Maybe some disappointment...

halibut2209

I think you are agreeing with me

piglet25

Tell the restaurant that you are going, get the meals served, give your work mates a couple of tupperware boxes to slide the food into - job done
I think the restaurant is acting badly, more so given the number of people attending.

Country_Cousin

I just think it is doubly unfair because it seems the party organiser paid in advance to make life easier for everyone (I know from experience what a nightmare it is making all the payments at the time of the meal - it totally spoils any enjoyment as you worry about the bill, and then getting everyone's money, that it is all going to add up, then you get people who insist on ordering drinks at the table and they are all added onto the bill etc, etc). However normally if you were eating in a restaurant you would not pay in advance and the restaurant would really have no option but to suck it up. They must have it happen where people do not turn up for booked reservations. I think they are being really unfair - in the light of it being a big booking too. I have to say that if I was the organiser I would be making it clear that I would not be booking next year ...

bukko

halibut2209 wrote: »

I think you are agreeing with me

Yes I am :beer: