Put down the tongs and back away from the buffet.
DES MOINES, Iowa -- [Buffet Super Consumer] may think twice before leaving that egg roll on her plate at her next Chinese buffet. The Des Moines woman, her boyfriend and her two children were kicked out of a restaurant last week after management accused her of leaving too much food on her plate. - READ FULL STORY (Notice this didn't happen on the left coast)
Of course it's happened before...
Man on low-carb diet kicked out of buffet restaurant after asking for 12th slice of roast beef - READ FULL STORY
So we say, do they have a case? It would appear the businesses right to exclude, would apply. But isn't there a contract? I mean like I promised to pay, right? The damages are probably the cost of the meal, and if they kick you out before paying, or return the fare, no suit could likely be sustained.
And what about the fact that not letting you eat yourself to death might actually be laudable? Of course rewarding the buffet owner for "helping" in this instance is akin to rewarding crack dealers for preventing the occasional overdose.
We say SUE! - after all it's every lawyers favorite three letter word. But for a more "informed", and less fun view, see:
Clogging the Legal Arteries with Obesity Lawsuits
The average American consumes between 2,500 and 3,500 calories in a Thanksgiving dinner — the equivalent of more than two large pepperoni pizzas. In today’s litigious society, the process server may soon show up at mom’s door with an obesity lawsuit, charging her with some form of intentional infliction of bloating. - READ FULL STORY
Bonus - Flan Recipes
1 Comments:
Commentary -- Putting aside businesses’ right to exclude and/or is there a contract, I say, most people purchase a product believing that the company’s assertions regarding such product are based on credible facts as claimed by the company. Mr. Armaana was no different. He got kicked out of restaurant when he asked for his 12th slice of beef when he whole-heartedly believed that he could eat a limitless amount of meat and, at the same time, experience immense weight loss while participating in a “fool-proof“ diet which was guaranteed to be successful.
Because he was in the induction stage of the A-Diet, he was at a point of literally starving himself in order to follow the strict guidelines of that diet regimen.
Therefore, I conclude that neither the manager of the restaurant nor Mr. Armaana should be held responsible for the incident that occurred, but that the A-Diet Company should be held liable for Negligent Misrepresentation, in that the A-Diet Company intended customers to rely upon the statements in their books and on their web site to induce purchase of books and products.
The A-Diet Company should be held liable for Product Liability, in that Mr. Armaana, while in the induction phase, the most radical form of the Diet, suffered a psychological deficit due to a rapid nutritional decline caused by avoidance of all fruit, beans, peas, starchy vegetable, grains, and milk as demanded by the A-Diet Company in the Diet books and/or website.
The outcome of this decision may flood the proverbial gates with a plethora of consumer rights’ challenges that may provoke the bastions of modern thought to delve into forcing companies to be held liable for not only negligent misrepresentation, but also the venomous practice of inundating the public with junk mail (which is depleting our forests and ultimately contributing to the greenhouse effect as well as increasing our landfills with garbage,) and the predatory-like telephone soliciting techniques practiced by banks and credit card companies, not to mention being utterly overwhelmed with product-driven and sometimes outright immoral television advertisements.
Seeking justice.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home