Family locked in Restaurant for not Tipping...

A tip is optional and cannot be enforced by law.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

A tip is optional and cannot be enforced by law.

Read the article. The party was over 5 people, and on the menu it said that a 17% tip is applied to parties 5 or greater.

The 17% is charged for service. Service was provided, so it must be paid for (again, this was not an optional but a mandatory charge as stated on the menu). If you don't like the job they did then don't go back, but you are still on the hook for serices rendered.

Quick FYI

Always check your local and state laws but in general:

A gratuity belongs to the staff menbers and is included in their earnings report.

On the other hand a service charge belongs to the house and may, but is not required to, share it with the waitstaff.

You should be able to tell by the bill. If the sir-charge is in the body of the bill and the gratuity line is not filled in that means your server gets only what you put on that open gratuity line.

This is how it is supposed to work but alas not always the case. Abused abound at all levels of the industry frm major chains to top tier restaurants and even small Mom and Pop places have been sued by staff for return of 'stolen' wages.

the BRObius strip wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

A tip is optional and cannot be enforced by law.

Read the article. The party was over 5 people, and on the menu it said that a 17% tip is applied to parties 5 or greater.

The 17% is charged for service. Service was provided, so it must be paid for (again, this was not an optional but a mandatory charge as stated on the menu). If you don't like the job they did then don't go back, but you are still on the hook for serices rendered.

I assume that courts have addressed this mandatory charge. I assume (dangerous) that since it is on the menu and you ordered that it becomes a contract.

To me the folks did the proper thing in that they asked the manager to adjust it since the service was poor (taking their word for it). A smart manager would have done something to fix it (coupon for free desserts next time or something). If the manager refuses, pay the tab and then blast the heck out of the place on every social media and restaurant site you can find.

"I asked the police officer twice, maybe three times, is it against the law if we don't pay the gratuity and he never gave me a straight answer."

The on-duty manager at La Fisherman Restaurant told KPRC Local 2 they usually don't have a problem with people paying their gratuity, it but admitted they have called police for this type of issue before.

That action has gotten the attention of Houston's Better Business Bureau who said they are now looking into the complaint.

Sounds fishy.

the BRObius strip wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

A tip is optional and cannot be enforced by law.

Read the article. The party was over 5 people, and on the menu it said that a 17% tip is applied to parties 5 or greater.

The 17% is charged for service. Service was provided, so it must be paid for (again, this was not an optional but a mandatory charge as stated on the menu). If you don't like the job they did then don't go back, but you are still on the hook for serices rendered.

Printing something on the menu does not create any sort of enforceable contract. Can you point to one instance where the right to enforce a tip has been upheld in court?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Printing something on the menu does not create any sort of enforceable contract. Can you point to one instance where the right to enforce a tip has been upheld in court?

I believe that Mr. Obvious is right (as usual). But this is somewhat besides the point. Regardless of whether the customers were legally required to pay this charge there is no way that it is legal for the restaurant owners/managers to lock them in the restaurant. Such imprisonment is a serious criminal offense.

The legal thing for the restaurant to do is to report the perceived underpayment to the local authorities. Imprisoning the customers was hugely out of line from every angle, most importantly the legal one.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Printing something on the menu does not create any sort of enforceable contract. Can you point to one instance where the right to enforce a tip has been upheld in court?

Can't point to a case, but under your theory, none of the prices on a menu would be enforceable.

It seems to me that if the menu says that there will automatically be a set charge for over 5 people and you know you have more than 5 people then you have agreed to pay the charge, just like if it says a hamburger is $5, then you have agreed to pay $5 by ordering the hamburger.

This sounds like a lousy restaurant all around and it has now gotten some well-deserved bad publicity, but technically I think they were in the right.

My speculation wrote:

Can't point to a case, but under your theory, none of the prices on a menu would be enforceable.

Not so sure about that. Ordering, beind served and consuming a priced item is a clear contract. The %17 service for parties of 5 or more, not so clear, unless you are ordering the service charge. I'd simply declare individual parties of 1.

To me, it would seem a reasonable requirement for establishments that add these sort of surcharges be required to mention it to the group when they order. That way the group is duly informed and has the option to leave if they feel the charge is unwarranted.

Personally, I could never see how is it harder to serve a group of five rather than five individuals? Again, to me, it seems as if a group would be easier to concentrate on than a bunch of individuals.

I can see the arguement though, if there happens to be one person picking up the tab, and he's a freaking cheap-skate, the wait-staff may get hosed hard. But, if according a previous poster, the surcharge goes to the establishment, not the wait-staff, then the waiters still probably get screwed because most people don't realize this and either don't add on any more at all or very little over the set mark-up.

You folks are all missing the big picture here. Whether or not a surcharge is mandatory is definitely NOT the point. The point is that these customers were falsely imprisoned, a serious criminal offense. I would be amazed if this restaurant is not sued into bankruptcy for this.

Big Picture Please wrote:

You folks are all missing the big picture here. Whether or not a surcharge is mandatory is definitely NOT the point. The point is that these customers were falsely imprisoned, a serious criminal offense. I would be amazed if this restaurant is not sued into bankruptcy for this.

Not sure if you were posting in reply to me, but yes, I do see that is the big picture. The restaraunt owners might just as well have shot them for wearing hoodies into the joint.

My speculation wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Printing something on the menu does not create any sort of enforceable contract. Can you point to one instance where the right to enforce a tip has been upheld in court?

Can't point to a case, but under your theory, none of the prices on a menu would be enforceable.

It seems to me that if the menu says that there will automatically be a set charge for over 5 people and you know you have more than 5 people then you have agreed to pay the charge, just like if it says a hamburger is $5, then you have agreed to pay $5 by ordering the hamburger.

This sounds like a lousy restaurant all around and it has now gotten some well-deserved bad publicity, but technically I think they were in the right.

There are, however, several cases in which restaurants have attempted to enforce such service charges and the authorities have declined, stating that it is not an enforceable contract'.

Of course, as other posters have pointed out, imprisonment is a far more serious offense. This restaurant is in big trouble.

On a side note, I wish we would do away with this whole tipping business. Just increase the prices and have the reataurants pay their staff a sufficient wage.

underthinking it wrote:

Not so sure about that. Ordering, beind served and consuming a priced item is a clear contract. The %17 service for parties of 5 or more, not so clear, unless you are ordering the service charge. I'd simply declare individual parties of 1.

"Uncle Dullard didn't say a word during dinner, so we don't consider him to be a member of this party..."

time equality wrote:

Big Picture Please wrote:

You folks are all missing the big picture here. Whether or not a surcharge is mandatory is definitely NOT the point. The point is that these customers were falsely imprisoned, a serious criminal offense. I would be amazed if this restaurant is not sued into bankruptcy for this.

Not sure if you were posting in reply to me, but yes, I do see that is the big picture. The restaraunt owners might just as well have shot them for wearing hoodies into the joint.

Sorry, I was not really replying to you. Just a general response to the overall path of the thread.

I cannot open the link but I would like to know the race of the people who did not tip.

I am just curious as I worked as a waiter for 8 years while in college/grad school.

The restaurant probably did something wrong, but it's safe to assume that these non-tipping people are awful humans.

Big Picture Please wrote:

You folks are all missing the big picture here. Whether or not a surcharge is mandatory is definitely NOT the point. The point is that these customers were falsely imprisoned, a serious criminal offense. I would be amazed if this restaurant is not sued into bankruptcy for this.

That's a bingo.

Even if they didn't pay for the food at all they can't be locked in the restaurant and held hostage.

^ wrote:

Big Picture Please wrote:

I would be amazed if this restaurant is not sued into bankruptcy for this.

That's a bingo.

Even if they didn't pay for the food at all they can't be locked in the restaurant and held hostage.

How is this different (legally) than stopping somebody that leaves my store with an item without paying for it? Since the product was already consumed I can't detain them until police arrive?