So what happens if you were to go to an italian restaurant and there was a bottle of wine on the table....you ordered food and ate it and never touched the bottle of wine (maybe picked it up to look at it) and then you had to pay for the wine you DIDNT DRINK...or a mexican restaurant....says free unlimited chips yet you had to pay for them.So i say she shouldnt pay for it cuz she didnt order it and therefore didnt execute the restaurant to spend extra time making something which costs money. So no payment is necessary
What If?
Started by
Guest_blackhawk808
, Jul 16 2008 03:20 PM
461 replies to this topic
#202
Guest_asdljf123
Guest_asdljf123
-
- Guest
Posted 08 April 2009 - 10:17 PM
I belive that it is considered manners or etiquette to leave at least tip on the table since they did enter the restraunt. However, she shouldn't have to pay for the tea, no.Consider it this way, you enter a national park but your car stops and doesn't go any further. You do not get money for your ticket back. This is completely your fault (and maybe Honda's) and thus you cannot complain.Restraunt is a business too and in the real world, money talks.
#203
Guest_Psynthoid
Guest_Psynthoid
-
- Guest
Posted 09 April 2009 - 12:40 AM
it appears as if she has to, but it is unfair.POINTS were deducted for this post by KM.Please refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#204
Guest_clover_myst
Guest_clover_myst
-
- Guest
Posted 10 April 2009 - 04:09 PM
Yes and no, it depends on the situation. If the guy asked the chick out....kinda said if u expect the girl to pay. 
......if she suggests ok, if she asked u out first, ok...if u've known each other for a long time now and the guy has been paying alot, then definitely the girl should at least pay once. Kinda unfair for the guys.
......if she suggests ok, if she asked u out first, ok...if u've known each other for a long time now and the guy has been paying alot, then definitely the girl should at least pay once. Kinda unfair for the guys.
#205
Guest_jerzy1
Guest_jerzy1
-
- Guest
Posted 13 April 2009 - 12:26 AM
They should pay. People work hard in restaurants and the time it took for them to make the tea could have been spent making meals that people would definitely pay for.
#206
Guest_Omegas Squared
Guest_Omegas Squared
-
- Guest
Posted 13 April 2009 - 02:36 AM
She should definitely pay. The tea (although that's not much) was made and served, and thus could not be reused once abandonded.
#207
Guest_zabic
Guest_zabic
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2009 - 10:21 PM
The woman should pay the bill because she ordered the tea. What if she was ordering a big pizza and then had to go, no one would eat that pizza so if she ordered it, she should pay it!
#208
Guest_brendab
Guest_brendab
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2009 - 10:52 PM
of course she should pay, why wouldn't she. She got the kettle of tea delivered to her table by the waiter and everything. Maybe they had to make it especially for her. Yes she should pay
#209
Guest_TyroneAdriana
Guest_TyroneAdriana
-
- Guest
Posted 15 April 2009 - 12:07 AM
I think she should payPOINTS were deducted for this post by KM.Please refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#210
Guest_fogfactor
Guest_fogfactor
-
- Guest
Posted 15 April 2009 - 02:26 AM
No, i don't think she would have to pay for the kettle of tea, it's like paying for the breadsticks at olive garden!
#211
Guest_DE5PA1R
Guest_DE5PA1R
-
- Guest
Posted 18 April 2009 - 08:49 PM
If the waiter seated them and gave them the tea, he expected them to order something; a perfectly reasonable assumption. I'm sure the vast majority of people who sit down at a restaurant order food and drinks. The customers also expected to order something but did not. Meaning that when the waiter brought them their tea the customers were planning on drinking it, and therefore paying for it. Whether or not they did drink it is irrelevant; the customers planned on paying for the tea, and the waiter planned on the customers paying for the tea. If they had not planned on paying for the tea, they had an obligation to tell the waiter that they wouldn't be paying for it because he expected them to do so.We tend to think that we only pay for things that we use; that's not the case. In fact, we pay for things that we impede others from using. For example, if you went to Wal-Mart and broke a carton of eggs, you would be expected to pay for them. The question isn't whether or not you ate the eggs; the question is whether or not someone else could have bought the unbroken eggs and eaten them (or thrown them at people's doors, etc.) From this perspective, we can see that the customers were definitely depriving someone else from drinking the tea.So my answer is yes, I would pay the restaurant. The only exception I can think of is if I knew that the restaurant always gave out free tea. If it did, I would refuse to pay.
#212
Guest_spiralbond
Guest_spiralbond
-
- Guest
Posted 24 April 2009 - 05:17 PM
I personally believe that the women should pay in this scenario. Though both parties are at fault, more fault lies on the customers' end. First of, the waiter should not have brought the tea to the women without making it clear that it was not complimentary. However, the women could have made it clear that they did not require the tea, effectively preventing this disagreement from rising. As mentioned earlier, having this tea on their table prevents other people from consuming it, thus, an obligation does fall upon these ladies to either reject the item, or pay for it.Also, when one enters a restaurant, he/she is not just paying for food to consume; there are things such as service and opportunity costs that the restaurant incurs. In explanation, the waiter could have been providing service for someone else, and the space occupied by these women could have been used for customers who are actually willing to pay for services. As such, the women have already patronized part of the whole experience, therefore making me believe that at least some form of payment is required.
#213
Guest_taleen-san
Guest_taleen-san
-
- Guest
Posted 24 April 2009 - 09:06 PM
yaaaa !i mean if i was hell makin that tea thing i'd kick her ass if she didn'tPOINTS were deducted for this post by Ballistic BeanzPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#214
Guest_dyly
Guest_dyly
-
- Guest
Posted 25 April 2009 - 03:14 AM
she didnt order it, the waiter just put it there, they didnt really have a choice about it ya know. That is just not fair at all. Plus they didnt have any of the tea, at least it is never stated. Under this pretense, No she should not have to pay.
#215
Guest_Mr. Nice Guy 9517
Guest_Mr. Nice Guy 9517
-
- Guest
Posted 26 April 2009 - 08:52 AM
I say yes, because they went through the trouble of making it for her. So it would be a bit like if you buy something, then YOU break it, and there was no warranty and you want your money back.
#216
Guest_sekacamam
Guest_sekacamam
-
- Guest
Posted 26 April 2009 - 08:58 AM
If she drank some of the tea, sure. But I don't think she should be forced to pay for that if she never ordered the tea.
#217
Guest_Habs Fan
Guest_Habs Fan
-
- Guest
Posted 01 May 2009 - 04:09 AM
she shouldn't pay because they didn't do anything but talk and the tea is still good if the waiter hurrys 
#218
Guest_twinkylu
Guest_twinkylu
-
- Guest
Posted 10 May 2009 - 11:58 PM
yes - they wanted equal rights so they can put there hands in there pocket.
#219
Guest_caseymad09
Guest_caseymad09
-
- Guest
Posted 11 May 2009 - 12:41 AM
no they shouldn't pay because the restaurant can more than likely use the kettle of tea for their other customersand it still be hot if served to the next patrons
#220
Guest_Cosmoal
Guest_Cosmoal
-
- Guest
Posted 12 May 2009 - 10:40 PM
she should pay because restaurant is like a taxi, you get in, than pay. How could waiter know if she has drink or not!
#221
Guest_rock oxyde
Guest_rock oxyde
-
- Guest
Posted 13 May 2009 - 09:35 AM
She didn't order for the tea. The waiter just brought it there, that means the tea is like a complimentary service. He should not have placed it there in the first place if the tea has a price.But she did give the restaurant the trouble of getting service from the waiter without buying anything.Although it was the woman who had more fault, she shouldn't pay for the tea but for the trouble she had caused. There are things in the restaurant that customers also pay for like the service of the waiter, the lights and air conditioning, payment for business permits and the restaurant's rent for the space...etc.
#222
Guest_lazyj101
Guest_lazyj101
-
- Guest
Posted 14 May 2009 - 02:55 AM
No they should not and I most certainly would not. They had not ordered anything and the waiter nor the restaraunt could know if something would come up to stop them from ordering. They chose to take the risk of giving them the tea before they had ordered anything at all and should accept that it is their failing.
#223
Guest_horacle
Guest_horacle
-
- Guest
Posted 20 May 2009 - 01:28 PM
she haven't touch the kettle of tea yet why should she pay for it?
#224
Guest_Junior7710
Guest_Junior7710
-
- Guest
Posted 20 May 2009 - 07:50 PM
I think that they should pay, after all they didn't say that she couldn't give them tea and it would have been impolite for the waitress to interupt the conversation therefore she could freely assume that they didn't mind having the tea. And after all how much could a pot of tea be? Why not just pay...
#225
Guest_pokesh1nob1
Guest_pokesh1nob1
-
- Guest
Posted 21 May 2009 - 09:28 AM
u know what? she should pay...i mean she already got her tea, so it would be sort of a waste
