Many restaurants offer a variety of dine-in promotions such as “buy 1 get 1 free” and “all-you-can-eat” to attract customers to bring along their friends and family. However, if consumers do not pay close attention to or ask for details of the offers and charges beforehand, they may discover that the restaurant has a different interpretation of the offer only when they settle the bill, incurring a bill amount that does not meet understanding and often resulting in consumer disputes. It is also a common complaint in recent years for restaurants to indicate rounding off the total amount at bill settlement with no alert given beforehand when consumers are seated.
The Consumer Council points out that traders have the responsibility to improve transparency over their charges, such as by clearly stating if the 10% service charge is based on the original price when an offer is provided. Besides, restaurants should not regard rounding off as common trade practice. To make the arrangement binding, the restaurant must take reasonable measures to notify consumers in advance, for example by clearly displaying it on menus, at restaurant entrances, exits and other prominent locations, or by having staff explain to consumers when they enter or place orders. If this is not clearly indicated and consumers are not aware of it in advance, the trader may only “round down” or charge the exact bill but not “round up” and charge more. In addition, if the concession touts “all-you-can-eat” or a particular dish as the main selling point, the trader must ensure a reasonable supply. In case of ingredient shortage, the trader should take the initiative to inform consumers before seating so they can decide whether to continue to patronise.
Case 1: All-you-can-eat Peking Duck Sold Out and Member Discount Declined
The complainant booked a table at Restaurant A for a 2-hour all-you-can-eat hairy crab and Peking duck buffet at a pre-order special price of $528 per person. The complainant was seated at 7:30pm and was not informed by the waiter about the duck being sold out. The complainant noticed that the duck ordered had never been served, and was only notified upon enquiry that the duck had long been sold out due to their late seating. Moreover, as the menu stated that members could enjoy a 5% discount, the complainant, being a member of the restaurant, requested to enjoy the members’ privilege when settling the bill, but the staff refused to honour the discount offer, claiming that the menu was wrong. The complainant also discovered that the restaurant charged a 10% service charge of $58.8 per person instead of $52.8. Upon immediate complaint to the restaurant, neither the waiter nor the manager handled the matter in a proactive manner. The complainant could not accept that a main feature dish was sold out, thus filed a complaint with the Council demanding a partial refund from Restaurant A.
Restaurant A replied to the Council that the Peking duck was out of stock due to overwhelming demand that far exceeded supply, but denied that Peking duck was a featured food item, and pointed out that “some food items are available while stocks last” had been clearly indicated on order forms. As for the price, Restaurant A pointed out the terms of the offer had already stated that the “10% surcharge” would be calculated based on the original price of $588 per person. As for the members’ discount, Restaurant A believed that it was due to the branch’s delay in updating the menu, and therefore denied overcharging and refused to refund. As no consensus could be reached on the case, the Council has recommended the complainant to consider other legal recourse.
Case 2: No Indication on Posters that Price Was “Per Person”
Buy-1-get-1-free Offer Possibly Misleading
Posters on the buy-1-get-1-free, all-you-can-eat barbecue lunch offer at Restaurant B showed one of the set menus as $344. The complainant ordered the set menu with a friend, but at payment the bill was in fact $826 after a 10% service charge. Upon enquiring with the staff, the complainant was informed that the price on the poster was an average for each person. However, after poring over concession details on the poster, the complainant found neither any terms nor content specifying the price was per person. Suspecting that the promotion was misleading, the complainant filed a complaint with the Council.
Restaurant B responded to the Council that restaurant staff would take customers’ orders before they were seated, at the reception area, where it was displayed that the original price of the set menu was $688 per person, and the restaurant had given patrons a buy-1-get-1-free discount as promoted. The 10% service charge was based on the full price of the 2 set menus, i.e. $1,376, and they therefore considered the bill correct. However, Restaurant B agreed that the content of the poster was not clear enough and had since marked “per person” before the price on the poster.
Case 3: Electronic Payment Still Rounded Off
The complainant dined in at Restaurant C. The bill should be $204.6 including a 10% service charge, but restaurant staff requested a payment of $205 and pointed out that a notice was displayed at the cashier stating that “Bills will be rounded to the nearest dollar”. The complainant was dissatisfied that there was no sign on the menu or at prominent locations inside the restaurant indicating that bills would be rounded off, and that the restaurant staff had not informed customers in advance. However, Restaurant C insisted on charging $205, which the complainant finally paid with Octopus.
Restaurant C replied to the Council that it was common trade practice not to notify rounding off on menus and that their computer system was currently set to rounding off bills regardless of the payment method. However, Restaurant C would update its system settings so that if customers pay electronically, the bill would no longer be rounded off. The restaurant also agreed to display notices on rounding off at prominent locations inside the restaurant, and agreed to refund $0.40 to the complainant.
As restaurants promote new forms of discounts and offers, consumers should take note of the following tips before enjoying such offers to avoid disputes:
- Be mindful of the terms and conditions of various offers, such as whether they can be used in conjunction with other concessions, whether the restaurant will impose surcharges such as tea and condiments,and service charges, etc., and whether the 10% service charge is based on the original or promotional price, etc;
- Check out the terms of e-vouchers offered on online platforms, such as the date, time, and location of use, whether booking or the use of a designated credit card is required to enjoy the offer, and whether changes or cancellations can be made after confirmation, etc. Consumers may also take a screenshot or print out the e-voucher and retain relevant proof;
- Some vouchers are prepaid thus carry certain risks. In the event of restaurant closure, bankruptcy, or transfer of ownership, it may be difficult to obtain a refund. Therefore, consider the scale and reputation of the restaurant before purchase, avoid paying too much in advance, and use the vouchers as soon as possible.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/561restaurant
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.