NoUserName- I was confused about the 0L thing too because of this post from the resaturant thread:jeffislouieSr. Citizen****Posts: 198View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline) Re: Another Restaurant Fight« Reply #78 on: Today at 02:09:57 PM » Reply with quoteQuote from: RickLax.com on Today at 01:33:31 AMQuote from: jeffislouie on June 20, 2008, 12:36:12 PMHaving been a restaurant manager/GM for a decade, I am well qualified to weigh in on this matter.The manager was wrong for being accusatory and taking the server's side. There was no 'side' to take, and by being a prick about it, he left a bad taste in the customers mouth, jeopardizing the possibility of return business (which is the lifeblood of the restaurant industry).Bottom line - there wasn't a 'problem' that necessitated a manager stop by - the server was an idiot who made the situation worse by bringing over a bigger idiot. She could have pointed out the menu line that states a $2.50 charge for substitution. More troubling than that is the fact that the charge was added, but not itemized on the bill as a substitution charge.Additionally, having been a GM for so long, I am VERY familiar with food costing best practices. French Fries cost a few pennies more than baker potatos. Hard to believe, huh? Well, it's true. Fries are processed in a plant with a bunch of other ingredients, then flash frozen and shipped. Each step makes it slightly more expensive per serving that a baked potato. Ever wonder why some restaurants make their own fries? 2 reasons, they taste better and it's cheaper. This is something the consumer can see as well at the supermarket - go to the freezer section and take a look at the bag of fries. Check the cost per ounce. Then go to produce and check out the price of a raw potato.So charging a customer unnecessarily for actually lowering your cost of goods sold is a skeevy practice. Avoid restaurants that do this and if you don't catch it, like Rick, tell the manager that you think the policy is stupid and it just cost them a return customer.Finally, this was an untalented, very stupid manager. First of all, he appears to have been very aggressive about the matter, then pretends it's no big deal and that he'd be happy to take it off the bill. He could have done it right - tell the guest you will waive it today, then show them where it is on the menu, then tell them that you appreciate their business. Done. Customer happy, restaurant happy, and the server gets a tip.In this situation, I would tell the manager that I was reducing the servers tip because there was no reason to send over a manager over something she could have easily explained herself, then I would have tipped 10%. I also would tell the manager that if he is going to be aggressive about proving how right he is, he should have the balls to stick by what he says instead of being a prick to no end.And lay off Rick for posting blog entries here. He IS promoting his blog. Yes. Don't like it? Don't read his posts or, better yet, don't reply to them. Unless I'm doing something wrong, the only way to access a post on this site is to click on it. Each one is listed with the persons name too. What he does is hardly as upsetting as reading someone like Julie Fern speak like a caveman while being rude and calling people names like "shitbreath" because they disagree with her/him/it. Where are you people when that happens?Thanks so much for sticking up for me. Unsurprisingly, I think you're right about pretty much everything here.I got your back Rick!Don't listen to the haters. If they could have written a book that got published after graduating law school, you bet your behind they would have. But they can't, so instead they'll just bash on you because you did something they are incapable of.That's the internet for you! Haters and flames.....Frankly speaking, as a 0L, I found your site through LSD and am grateful for it, which is ironic because many slam you for posting here. I enjoy your writing and am happy for you that you got published (which is no easy feat, especially with law school in your life) and that you are getting ready for an attack on the bar exam. Good luck!The way the bolded part is written makes it very easy to read as "Frankly, speaking as an 0L, I found..."And, by the by, everybody ignore my LD suggestions. OP, I took a year between high school and college (long before the gap year became fashionable) and bagged it after two years of undergrad. I did that because I was exactly like you and StevePirates. I just didn't want to do it. Do yourself a favor, leave and go work for awhile. It took thirteen years for me to return to undergrad. I just graduated summa at UVA. When you want it, it makes all the difference.
And they won't consider your performance in the summer classes and possibly re-instate your scholarship for Fall?
I'm not sure they should consider his 'reliance' interest in determining that the original poster should keep his scholarship money for summer classes. His 'reliance' would have been the expectation that at least his 1st semester, 1L would have been paid for. It was. Following this he did not meet the condition that he maintain a 2.0 term GPA--so the scholarship money is gone. If the original poster was actually going to sue over this and proceed on some sort of contract theory--he would lose. It seems to me that his school's OFFER of a scholarship renews each semester. Since the poster can only ACCEPT the terms by performance (maintenance of a 2.0 or higher) then Restatement (2nd) Contracts 45 would control. Here the school is the offeror, and they are released from their duty to perform (pay his tuition) because the poster (offeree) did not complete performance within the terms of the schools offer. Restatement 90 won't work for him. It seems difficult that his reliance on scholarship money for summer classes would be 'justifiable' considering that he was aware of the need to maintain the 2.0.
That said, That should mean you could do well on some of the other standardized tests... Maybe go for a ph.D? is the WORST advice in this thread...maybe even on this board.
Page created in 0.243 seconds with 19 queries.