Some Call It SUE-shi
A diabetic man brings a lawsuit against a sushi restaurant, writes David Lazarus in the LA Times:
David Martin was in the mood for raw fish, and he liked the deal offered by a Studio City sushi restaurant: all you can eat for $28.He took a seat at the counter and started ordering. But it turned out that Martin didn't really want sushi, which includes rice; he wanted all-you-can-eat sashimi, which is just fish. He began picking the seafood off the top and leaving the rice.
Restaurant owner Jay Oh told Martin that if he wanted the all-you-can-eat price, he'd have to eat the rice too and not just fill up on fish. Martin replied that he has diabetes and that he can't eat rice.
Oh said he offered to prepare sashimi for Martin. Two orders of sashimi cost $25, or $3 less than the all-you-can-eat sushi deal. But Oh said Martin declined the offer.
Martin left the restaurant after being charged a la carte prices for the sushi he'd already ordered plus $1 for a cup of green tea.
Two weeks later, Martin filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. It seeks at least $4,000 in damages for the "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish" Martin says he suffered after being discriminated against "on the basis of his disability."
Sure, they say "all you can eat," and they don't spell out the ins and outs in bug type and make you sign a contract before you chow down -- probably because they are operating on the hope that customers will behave decently, as in, not try to take advantage just because they can.
Restaurants are in business to make money, and they will go out of business if people insist on gaming the deal like this guy wants to. Take me, for example. I don't eat carbs. I don't go to an Italian all-you-can-eat joint and serve myself an entire trough of spaghetti and pick out all the meatballs and leave the noodles. That would be piggy and unfair.
via @VPostrel
Sounds like he had enough money for the sashimi...
Kelly Pugh at February 18, 2011 3:03 PM
I have been to all-you-can-eat sushi restaurants because I'm a self-proclaimed sushi addict. Not one that I've frequented or infrequented has NOT posted on the menu or elsewhere that "you MUST eat the rice...". This guy is milking the system because he can and, in effect, costing taxpayers money unnecessarily. I hope they countersue and additionally that the state is able to recoup court costs and fees...
Lee L at February 18, 2011 3:06 PM
Most all you can eat places I've been to charge for every piece you don't eat. Probably because of people like this. And they explicitly mention unfinished rice is a piece.
Scott at February 18, 2011 3:30 PM
I, too, have generally seen signs posted stating that you'll be charged extra if you just pick out the little fish bits. I suppose those restaurants have been visited by the likes of Mr. Martin.
ahw at February 18, 2011 3:42 PM
In college we lived off a Mexican restaraunt that had "all-you-can-eat tacos" on Tuesday and Thursday nights. Two beers and 12 tacos could get you through a couple days easy.
Eric at February 18, 2011 4:03 PM
TWELVE tacos?
Amy Alkon at February 18, 2011 7:46 PM
Only TWO beers? That's breakfast, not a couple of days worth!
Ltw at February 18, 2011 7:56 PM
When I was at university a group of us used to regularly go to an all you can eat pizza night. It was pretty awful stuff, but what was worse was the behaviour of some of the customers. For some reason the dessert bar brought out the worst in people. Including:
- A man who brought a large chilled foil lined container and spent 10 minutes very carefully layering soft serve icecream into it to take home.
- A kid that grabbed a few blocks of jello with grubby hands, only to be told by the parent, not to use the spoon, but "that's too much, put some back". Which he did. Yuck.
Ltw at February 18, 2011 8:04 PM
There was an all-you-can eat buffet in San Francisco that said you had to clean your plate or be charged.
NicoleK at February 18, 2011 11:31 PM
Things like this is why all you can has dis-appeared. I only know of one besides casino buffets. That one is so expensive it doesn't make sense - if the place were KFC it would be like the step above the bucket but only one person can use it and for only one sitting.
The Former Banker at February 19, 2011 12:31 AM
Doesn't the "sushi" part apply to the rice anyway? I mean you can fill it with anything from spam to cucumber, wrap it (or not) with seaweed or egg, and form it in any number of shapes - but the rice is a constant.
Elle at February 19, 2011 7:15 AM
1. If you are not eating the rice you are not eating 'sushi'
2. Diabetics CAN eat rice
3. I have been kicked out of an all you can eat place, along with a buch of other guys on my hih school swim team - its not that embarasing(unless you try to be a jackass about it)
lujlp at February 19, 2011 7:21 AM
>> Twelve Tacos??
It was college- I couldn't work three tacos down these days. Usually 1 or 2 is plenty.
Eric at February 19, 2011 9:26 AM
All you can eat sushi sounds like a bad idea.
Christopher at February 19, 2011 12:05 PM
All you can eat sushi sounds like a bad idea.
_____________________
Yes, I'm pretty sure that in "Kitchen Confidential," Anthony Bourdain warned about the health hazards of cheap almost-anything.
lenona at February 19, 2011 1:16 PM
Doesn't the "sushi" part apply to the rice anyway?
Yes it does.
The Former Banker at February 19, 2011 2:48 PM
"Restaurants are in business to make money, and they will go out of business if people insist on gaming the deal like this guy wants to"
The guy's being a jerk for suing, but I'm not sure I completely agree. They'll go out of business if too many people do it, but that doesn't happen, there will always be honest people, and a certain relatively limited and predictable percentage of people do it, so it's something you must work into the business model. You will *always* have a percentage of customers who try rip you off (no matter what business you have), and it's something every business owner needs to work into their business model.
For example, and this is greatly simplifying, but if 10% of people "cheat" and those 10% have a cost-to-restaurateur of $40, and the remaining 90% have an average cost-to-restaurateur of $25, then the average cost per customer is $26.50 and the restaurant averages $1.50 profit per customer.
If the restaurant wants to increase their profit margins, they can either raise the price, lower the percentage of cheaters, or both. This will depend on various factors. If a restaurant next door is offering all-you-can-eat sushi for $27, then there is competitive pressure preventing him from raising his price, and he would have more pressure to reduce the percentage of cheaters. If demand outstrips supply in his area, he could raise it to $29 or $30. It's up to the restaurant owner to work "cheaters" into their business model.
The percentage of cheaters can be reduced or increased through actions or inactions of the restaurauteur. For example, posting signs warning that "you must eat the rice" might lower the percentage of cheaters from 10% to 8%. Or, walking around inspecting what people are eating and admonishing cheaters, but this sort of thing risks raising customer ire and thus hurting your image.
I'd say my opinion here also depends on the attitude of the restaurant owner here. If the restaurant owner had an attitude, I'd be pissed off as a customer too. If the restaurant owner made the mistake when working out his business model and assumed a zero percentage of cheaters, then the restaurant owner might well overreact and feel cheated and take it personally and develop a major attitude against people who try game the system. You still have to maintain a friendly atmosphere in a restaurant.
While we would all like to expect people to be good honest people, there is a percentage of people who always try cheat, and a restaurant owner should know that --- "all-you-can-eat" really is a straight-forward English phrase meaning "all-you-can-eat", unless it's specifically accompanied by fine print. It feels like bait and switch to me if you advertise "all you can eat", and then once you're inside sitting down they say "oh but there are various conditions". If there are conditions, put them in writing out front on the damn sign.
Lobster at February 19, 2011 4:35 PM
I don't think the guy should have sued, but I do think the restaurant owner was being a jerk here. Lobster lays it out pretty well right above me.
Plus, there's always going to be some people who eat more than others and you'd think that all-you-can-eat restaurants should take that into account. What if an NFL linebacker had been sitting next to Martin and ended up eating twice the sushi that Martin had consumed, rice and all? Why should Martin be the one singled out? I think if you're advertising "all you can eat" then you have to accept that means "all you can eat," which is why it seems to make much more sense as a business model for inherently cheap carby foods like pizza or spaghetti as opposed to sushi.
Shannon at February 19, 2011 4:51 PM
Why should Martin be singled out?
Because it was all you can eat SUSHI
Sushi is the rice, not the bits of raw or cooked sea food on top of the rice
If you are not eating the rice you are not eating sushi
By discarding the rice Martin was not eating the one thing actually covered under the all you can eat food order
lujlp at February 20, 2011 1:47 AM
Leave a comment