I went to a Mexican Restaurant where the Carne Asada had gristle in every bite. They was kind enough to replace it but the new one was just as bad. Of course I paid for the meal but should I have?
Yep. Refund is not required by law. I don’t think most places will insist on (upon) payment if you’re not satisfied.
You don’t have to tip, or return, though.
Peace,
mangeorge
BTW; I’ve eaten Carne Asada in friend’s homes, and it was pretty gristly.
Peace,
mangeorge
[highjack]
When going to an eatery, is there any point that you agree to pay? I mean, I can say “Can I have that?” so technically I never said can I have that for 7.95…
[/highjack]
Hey, even if the food was nasty, go to the manager, but don’t take it out on your waiter (if he/she was nice and tried to help you out). If you do leave w/o paying or tipping, chances are all or part of your meal will be coming out of your server’s pocket.
If you’re polite and the manager honestly wants to please you, his/her customer, the honorable thing for the manager to do is to “comp” the meal and perhaps offer a gift certificate.
It’s not the law, though, unfortunately.
IANAL. Anyway, it’s generallly the law in the states that a product sold must be suitible for its purpose, and in contract law you don’t have an obligation to pay for something you didn’t agree to pay for. So, if the manager brings out a plate of food, and you take one bite and almost throw up, I would be willing to bet you legally don’t have to pay pretty much anywhere in the US. In your case, though, the food was not to your liking but was still edible - you’re going to have a hard time convincing anyone that the food was not suitible for humans to eat, or that you didn’t agree to pay for it, if you down the whole plate.
If you’re not satisfied with the food, though, just talk to the manager. I’ve never been to a restaurant where the manager wasn’t willing to replace the defective food with what you want (say, you ordered medium-rare and got well-done), or to offer some sort of refund or partial refund if you’re really not satisfied. Although I haven’t done this myself, managers also seem willing to let you have a different meal if the first one simply wasn’t palatable to you (presuming you didn’t eat half of it before discovering you didn’t like it) or to offer some other kind of deal. (This somewhat depends on the restaurant; a hole-in-the-wall is going to be a bit different than a 4-star place).
I imagine the law varies with the state. My understanding is that in Kansas, if you are not satisfied with the meal, you are not obliged to pay. I don’t believe that finishing the meal negates this. Obviously, restaurateurs are not going to make a point of informing customers of this.
this has been discussed here before.
my take is that if the food is unfit for consumption, then yes you should not pay and would be legally able to defend that.
However, if you do not like the taste of the dish, since you’re trying it for the first time, then you might not have a strong legal defense. You might be able to request the manager to get you another dish or cancel the order. A lot of restaurants are very kind in this regard.