Hypocritically, given that I’m in a holier-than-thou-art profession myself, one thing I hate is when lawyers pull the “it’s illegal to do X” or “you have a contract to do X” thing to get their way in really petty situations.
On Canada Day, a new acquaintance of mine wanted to come in to a restaurant to use the washroom at 5:55 p.m. The store’s posted hours were 9:00 to 6:00. They said “no, we’re closing, sorry.” She went into this speech with them about how they were contractually obligated to let her in, and that they could…suffer some unnamed punishment if they broke that contract. It probably took her longer to say than to walk half a block to another place that she could pee.
Sure, it’s not good for business to have unreliable hours, but is it actually illegal (in both the criminal or the civil sense)? It seems silly, if so.
I seriously doubt any “damages” could be proven, talking for Canada, as I don’t know, but in the US, there would be NO contract, if one wishes to call it that, breach.
It seems silly because if it were true, there is an easy fix. Restaurants closing “early” would just take the sign out of the window or all restaurants would have fine print on their sign saying that all times are approximate.
I hate people like that. Back in my teen years I worked at a pizza place and the manager would shut things down early if it was a slow night. I remember a few times when people would pound on the door at 9:59 and point to the sign and demand that we make them food. I mean I get the disapointment but it’s not like they are the Emperor.
A legal contract requires the agreement of both sides to apply. The sign is just an offer; the user took up the offer, but the restaurant withdrew it before agreeing. It’s the equivalent of handing someone a contract, having them sign it, but not signing it yourself. The contract is not binding.
Regardless, the restaurant is not legally obligated to let her use the bathroom if she is not a paying customer, even if they are open. I notice that you call her “an acquaintance” rather than a friend. She sounds like an annoying person. I wonder if the “sorry, we’re closing” was partially an easy excuse to get rid of her.
IANAL. In jurisdictions of the common law tradition, if there is no consideration, then there is no contract. That applies to most of Canada. Quebec has an odd hybrid system with elements from both civil law and the common law, so I don’t know whether that principle holds there.
I called her an acquaintance for a reason, yes. As a joke, a friend who met her had said “look out for those lawyers!” and he crowed in delight when he heard the story.
Thanks all for justifying my suspicions. Her field is insurance claims, anyway.
It’s just like, at least in the US, concerning the public accomodation laws. You can ban a person from your store if you do not like them, but you can’t ban them because of thier race, etc.
In your case, banning a person due to a change in hours is legal.
The civil aspects have been addressed, so I’ll add that there is nothing in Canada’s Criminal Code that allows any kind of criminal charge to be brought against a place of business that decides to close early. Of course, a complaint could be made if the person was denied entry based on a prohibited ground under human rights statutes (race, religion, etc.) but that wouldn’t be a criminal charge; and besides, it doesn’t sound like it happened here.
It should be noted that restaurants can, and often do, restrict the use of their washrooms to their patrons. It’s a common practice, and is not illegal.
I agree that those customers were being unreasonable, because they should not have expected to be able to order the food, receive it, pay, and be out the door in 59 seconds.
In contrast, if they had shown up at 9:30, or even 9:45, they would have acted quite reasonably. Yet, I have seen some shop-owners close up even an hour or more on what they consider to be “a slow day”. I concede that they’re not breaking any laws, but it is NOT good customer relations. And I hate stores like that.
This happened in 1981 but to the best of my recollection, this would be at like five or ten minutes early at most. That said, how is pounding on the windows and demanding service from some teen who had no part in the decision in way acting “quite reasonably.” Are these customers that anyone wants to retain?
With all due respect, don’t take it so personally. Their actions and emotions are not directed at the teen employee, but at the boss whose direction that teen is following. Their anger is not to the messenger, but to the message. Of course, if they are hoping that the teen will disobey that boss and reopen the place, then sure, they’re being unreasonable.
I have always been very appreciative of signs which are specific, and say things like. “Open until 10 PM; last orders taken at 9:30.” This lets people know that they should not arrive at 9:31, and if they show up at 9:29, they’ll have only a half-hour for the ordering and cooking and eating. I once arrived at a restaurant close to closing time, and they graciously pointed out that they’d be happy to cook my order, but that it would have to be take-out; I was very happy to be so informed, and ate the meal back at my hotel afterward.
Never heard that term, don’t believe, so I looked it up:
A contract is formed where there is an offer, an acceptance, consideration and an intention to be bound. An invitation to treat, on the other hand, is merely an invitation for customers to submit an offer. While it indicates a willingness to deal, it is distinguishable from an offer in that it lacks an intention to be bound.
Whatever label one affixes, a business can close any time it wants, period.
It’s a standard legal tactic. The only difference is that instead of sending a letter full of legalese and totally unsupportable bullshit, she delivered the message in person.
Lawyers will tell you “we can send them a nasty threatening letter, but if they ignore it, there’s nothing much else we can do.”
