You're viewing a single thread.
Why should the restaurant/ bar take a loss though. Should just chalk this up to a lesson in responsibility- being responsible enough to know when to quit drinking, and responsible enough to not ask someone to pay for your mistake.
Because if they refuse and then if the person downs the drink, gets too drunk and injures someone the bar and bartender are held responsible. Bar tenders are supposed to cut you off at a certain point to avoid this.
That does raise a good point. The sale shouldn't have been made in the first place, which is a good reason to refund it.
Those aren't the only two options. A third option, is simply not drink it and walk away.
Easy to say if you're not 19 and broke.
It's not that much different than getting free sodas when you're clearly the DD.
Sure it's small loss but if there's more people that are buying overpriced drinks as a result of a DD it comes out in the wash.
Bars aim for return customers and safe environments for their patrons.
Yes, I'm not arguing that the bar shouldn't have given the patron a refund. That was incredibly sweet and good business. I'm arguing that the patron shouldn't have asked in the first place.
that's probably not the worst thing that 19 year old has done that day.
Ha! You are 100% correct
it's not much of a loss (the drink itself isn't worth much at all) and they asked nicely
I didn't say it was a big loss. But it's still a loss. The bar is taking a loss because a customer over ordered.
Yes, and there should be no grace in this world for changing your mind or thinking better of a decision.
Okay, let's look at this from a purely economical perspective and disregard that people, including workers and owners, sometimes have pity on people.
This person will remember the kindness and prefer to go to that place in the future. They'll even bring their friends. Therefore, potentially, making it a profitable move.
I 100% agree. I think that it was rude for the customer to ask for refund in the first place. If I go to a restaurant and order dessert after dinner and then decide that I don't want it, I don't ask for my money back. Why is it different just because of alcohol?
Because alcohol has greater liability for the establishment supplying it. They're legally required not to over serve alcohol while no such requirement exists for food. That's because overeating once in a while just results in a stomach ache, maybe vomiting if you really overdo it whereas over drinking can result in death.
I'm not so sure that EU bar laws are similar to American laws as far as liability is concerned. But even if they are, there no reason that an establishment's liabity would excuse the patron's fiscal responsibility. He ordered the drink, he's responsible for paying for it. Just because the customer decides he's done drinking, I don't see why then the bar owes him his money back. And there's no law that says that drink has to be drank. Just put the drink down and go home.
They should take the loss because they agreed to take the loss.
because it's vodka and coke and why does owning a business mean god forbid you take a loss? what about the 19yo kid? why should he lose $15?
It has to do with responsibility. Its the kid's responsibility, not the establishments