Oh man, that's one of my all-time favorite comedy routines!

To bring it back into the computer / tech realm, and maybe, somehow related to gOg (take THAT, mf'ers!), reminds me of 'unlimited' data contracts from both cellular providers and ISPs, that turn out to be not-so-unlimited. Unlimited until you reach our unpublished limit, and then it's limited. Oh, did we forget to mention that? Sorry, but please go ahead and pay the overage charge as soon as you have the opportunity.

Once got an email, way back when, when I was a dial-up customer on EarthLink. Something like, "Hey, you're using too much of our unlimited access." "Yeah, and? You sold me unlimited service and I'm using it just like your contract allows." That taught me to stick with only those providers that don't cap bandwidth or service use.

At the other end of the spectrum....

Dilbert cartoon

True, though the customer also has the right to demand appropriate service after he paid for it. As silly as the matter itself is, it might actually present a legal conundrum. As soon as the customer pays for the all-you-can-eat buffet, and the restaurant accepts that payment, the two sides have agreed to a contract. If the restaurant decides _afterwards_ that they want to revoke that contract, they need to at least compensate the customer for not fulfilling their part of the contract completely. The customer can't "give back" the consumed goods in any case.

Morally, the restaurant didn't do anything wrong, they definitely gave the customer more than most other customers get for the same amount of money. Legally though, if the restaurant doesn't have any clause in their terms of service that allows them to act the way they did, they may indeed have broken their contract with the customer.
Interesting. Are such contracts considered legal in the US? I'm asking because that matter was discussed in some detail here in Germany (we had similar types of contracts), and I think the final ruling was that the customer needs to be made aware of such limitations when he's signing the contract, otherwise the limitation can't be enforced. This has then led to ISPs hiding said information somewhere between the small print of the contract, so that it was technically there, but not very visible. There was then another ruling (IIRC) which said that the limitation needs to have some minimum visibility (higher than something hidden in the small print) in order to be valid.

You've been way too conditioned by the legal hurdles of software licensing debates. There are no "terms of service" for a restaurant, there is only the law (insert Judge Dredd joke here). The law says they have the right to refuse service to any individual as long as it does not violate their civil rights. If they kicked him out because he was black, the restaurant has a problem, but they kicked him out because he was being a disturbance, totally legit. They don't need a "clause" in a "contract" to remove a disruptive customer, he already broke his part of the "contract" by being like that and is lucky he didn't face additional legal ramifications, like an arrest for disturbing the peace, or failure to vacate private property when ordered to (trespassing). They even compensated him when they certainly didn't have to, they sent him home with a bag full of food.

Rather by living in Germany, and having to deal with the legal ramifications of running a business in this country myself, I'm afraid. ;) But yeah, restaurants are a bit outside of my area of expertise, and it's possible that the situation is less complicated than I thought, even in a regulation-heavy buiness environment such as Germany's. :)

In any case, if the customer behaved in a disruptive way before the question of how much food he can get out of all-you-can-eat offer even became an issue, then the restaurant has the right send him out. (I didn't watch the linked video since I was bothered by the ad that played before it, so I may have missed important information.)

They sold the man all he can eat fish, they did not fulfill that. The restaurant is in the wrong. If they don't want to provide all one can eat then limited it to something like "Up to 12 pieces of fish, no carryout" up front. A restaurant has to provide what it sells.

Concerning the running tab, if they decided to allow that and continued to serve him despite him owing them money, then that is their problem and they should have refused to serve him from the start if that was a problem.

So did the 350 lbs man go on hunger strike then?

Sure the man can eat, theoretically, 50 fish but that doesn't mean he should. I never understood those kind of people who try pacmanning everything in sight just because they can ...

But it's fish, and fish is good for you. So if one fish is good for your health, then 50 fish must be sooper-dooper-ooper healthy eating.




Wait, it doesn't work that way?

Odds are, it was fried fish, so it wasn't even that good for him to begin with.

The plastic lobsters bit is a dig from a very similar Simpsons bit/episode where homer gets kicked out of a buffet restaurant for eating WAY too much:

Argh!
Again, I already said I agree they are technically in the wrong legally....I wanted to hear opinions on the other issues at hand here......like who's right morally, the guy or the restaurant....among other things.

If I saw that... well... the food better be damn good, that's all I have to say.

If the price is low enough(some buffets are kinda pricey) then if one wanted more they could buy another ticket, I guess. :\

(And let's face it....some people don't even eat all that much at buffets to begin with, so that chinese buffet might be more than enough for such people. My mother(when she goes to buffets) usually barely eats 1 plate of salad + 1 plate of small appetizers(Like mash potatoes/pasta/popcorn shrimps/etc) + some main stuff like roast beef/steak + maybe 1 or two small desserts.)