"The frequent fliers who flew too much" - Page 2

timhau · 9th May 2012, 12:08 PM

Same here -- it's all you can eat, not all you can eat and carry out.

tomwaits · 9th May 2012, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Actually, a lot of all you can eat places around here do specifically mention that, along with being charged extra if you waste food by taking it from the buffet but not eating it.

But the point was that this restriction would probably be included in the contract between you and the restaurant regardless of whether it's mentioned or not. In addition, I believe getting food at a restaurant would be covered under the Uniform Commercial Code, which means the agreement is to be supplemented by custom and usage of trade.

Modified · 9th May 2012, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by timhau

Same here -- it's all you can eat, not all you can eat and carry out.

Fortunately, it's "as much as you want to eat". "All you can eat" would be difficult to enforce.

Monza · 9th May 2012, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by superfreddy

Interesting point. It's just like going to the all you can eat buffet. You just don't take a bunch of dogie bags to resale them. It may not be specified but it's part of the "all you can eat" contract.

This comparison is not quite right. It would be if the restaurant sold an unlimited dinner pass where the buyer could have dinner and also bring along a companion to eat free as well. Then the buyer tells his companion to give him a few bucks. Since it's less than the price of a dinner, the companion gets a great deal. The buyer makes some return on his investment. And the restaurant has to honor the contract they sold: a dinner to the buyer and his companion. The resaurant has already been paid by the buyer. Shame on them if they didn't charge enough.

Monza · 9th May 2012, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Modified

Fortunately, it's "as much as you want to eat". "All you can eat" would be difficult to enforce.

I was in Paris last year. In a small bistro, the owner refused to take away my friend's plate until he finished all of his vegatables. Difficult to enforce, but not impossible.

crimresearch · 9th May 2012, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by superfreddy

Interesting point. It's just like going to the all you can eat buffet. You just don't take a bunch of dogie bags to resale them. It may not be specified but it's part of the "all you can eat" contract.

There is no 'all you can eat' contract.

No one reasonably believes that the 'spirit of the program' in a buffet, is a contract for as much as you can possibly eat on or off premises for 8.95.

And there is no contract at all when one party has interpereted an offer in such an irrational manner as to do away with the requisite 'meeting of the minds'.

In the case of the airlines, there was clearly an intention to offer, and to accept an offer of high volume air travel for an extremely high price.

The fact that the airline felt the need to go back and re-write the conditions in future contracts, serves as evidence that they knew they had miscalculated their profit margin, not that their original terms had been violated by the purchaser.

Now I'm hungry.

tomwaits · 10th May 2012, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

There is no 'all you can eat' contract.

No one reasonably believes that the 'spirit of the program' in a buffet, is a contract for as much as you can possibly eat on or off premises for 8.95.

I'm sorry, but can you clarify what this means? Of course eating at an "all you can eat" restaurant is a contract.

Quote:

And there is no contract at all when one party has interpereted an offer in such an irrational manner as to do away with the requisite 'meeting of the minds'.

Contracts exist independently of the subjective belief of the parties.

Quote:

In the case of the airlines, there was clearly an intention to offer, and to accept an offer of high volume air travel for an extremely high price.

The fact that the airline felt the need to go back and re-write the conditions in future contracts, serves as evidence that they knew they had miscalculated their profit margin, not that their original terms had been violated by the purchaser.

That's your interpretation. Another interpretation would be that there were implied terms to the contract that were neither accepted nor denied by the written terms. And the airline's changes to future contracts only indicates their desire to eliminate confusion so they can avoid more legal battles in the future, it generally cannot be used as evidence to show that they know they don't have a legal leg to stand on. See for example Federal Rules of Evidence 407, which has been interpreted to also apply to breach of contract cases.

ETA: Actually, I just glanced at the trial court opinion regarding Rothstein and it seems there is a provision in the contract against "fraudulent usage" (whatever that means) and a merger clause, and the Illinois judge ruled that Rothstein's actions were considered fraudulent usage. So we don't really need to figure out whether there was an implied term, we just need to figure out what the phrase "fraudulent usage" means.

EHocking · 10th May 2012, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

Maybe so, but If it was a choice between driving or flying from Sydney to Adelaide, I'd rather kill myself than drive. The Hay Plains are just that boring and depressing.

It's basically 350 km of this:
......

And not much more interesting once you get to your destination, either.

EHocking · 10th May 2012, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

It would pass faster at 210 kph. I think that's what my speedo goes up to. Getting away with that is another matter. How picky are they about speeding?

As an post-high school rite of passage, a mate and I drove from Melbourne to Perth in 32 hours.

Not a bad average speed considering we had to wait in some god-forsaken hick town on Sunday morning for the petrol station owner to come back from church, and some mechanical repairs in Norseman on the the exhaust system I ripped off at the manifold and wrapped 'round the back axle after hitting a (dead) roo.

WildCat · 10th May 2012, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

Maybe so, but If it was a choice between driving or flying from Sydney to Adelaide, I'd rather kill myself than drive. The Hay Plains are just that boring and depressing.

It's basically 350 km of this:

350 km? That's only 3.5 hours at a leisurely pace. Much better than dealing with the idiocy and security hassles at an airport.

I used to love to fly... not any more.

WildCat · 10th May 2012, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Indeed, Damien.

(I'm not opposed to flying within Australia.)

It's rather difficult to drive to another country from Australia, isn't it?

WildCat · 10th May 2012, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Monza

I was in Paris last year. In a small bistro, the owner refused to take away my friend's plate until he finished all of his vegatables. Difficult to enforce, but not impossible.

Did he also try to get pudding before he ate his meat?

crimresearch · 10th May 2012, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by tomwaits

I'm sorry, but can you clarify what this means? Of course eating at an "all you can eat" restaurant is a contract.

Contracts exist independently of the subjective belief of the parties.

That's your interpretation. Another interpretation would be that there were implied terms to the contract that were neither accepted nor denied by the written terms. And the airline's changes to future contracts only indicates their desire to eliminate confusion so they can avoid more legal battles in the future, it generally cannot be used as evidence to show that they know they don't have a legal leg to stand on. See for example Federal Rules of Evidence 407, which has been interpreted to also apply to breach of contract cases.

ETA: Actually, I just glanced at the trial court opinion regarding Rothstein and it seems there is a provision in the contract against "fraudulent usage" (whatever that means) and a merger clause, and the Illinois judge ruled that Rothstein's actions were considered fraudulent usage. So we don't really need to figure out whether there was an implied term, we just need to figure out what the phrase "fraudulent usage" means.

Your assertions are just that... your assertions.

They happen to contradict what the legal community accepts as the required elements of a contract. That isn't my interpretation, that is the reality.

If you want to find someone to 'prove' that reality to your satisfaction, pay for a lawyer, or take a law class.

tomwaits · 10th May 2012, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Your assertions are just that... your assertions.

They happen to contradict what the legal community accepts as the required elements of a contract. That isn't my interpretation, that is the reality.

If you want to find someone to 'prove' that reality to your satisfaction, pay for a lawyer, or take a law class.

What are the required elements of a contract that an all you can eat buffet does not include?

Damien Evans · 10th May 2012, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

It would pass faster at 210 kph. I think that's what my speedo goes up to. Getting away with that is another matter. How picky are they about speeding?

(I once crossed a distance close to this in an hour (on the clock anyway), but that was a combination of crossing a time zone, plus daylight savings time ending while I was on the road.) One day a year it's possible, in places that do the time change.

Pretty damn picky. If you got caught going 210 they might just crush your car. Certainly in Victoria if you get caught doing something like that 3 times off goes your car, not to mention the massive fines and years of loss of licence.

210 speedo though? Pfft, even my 1999 Ford Laser (A Mazda 323 in a paper thin disguise) goes to 220 on the speedo. I doubt it'd reach it in real life though. I reckon if I pushed it to the limit it'd top out just under 200. Fastest I've ever done in it is 115 though.

crimresearch · 10th May 2012, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by tomwaits

What are the required elements of a contract that an all you can eat buffet does not include?

Spare me the strawmen.

If you want to know what the elements of a contract are, look that up, if you want a legal education, pay for it.

If you just want to troll for silly internet debate games, find someone else to play with you.

Damien Evans · 10th May 2012, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by EHocking

And not much more interesting once you get to your destination, either.

Many have said that, but last time I went to Adelaide it was really nice. I suppose it helped that I was staying in Glenelg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenelg,_South_Australia

Damien Evans · 10th May 2012, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Did he also try to get pudding before he ate his meat?

Well played.

tomwaits · 10th May 2012, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Spare me the strawmen.

If you want to know what the elements of a contract are, look that up, if you want a legal education, pay for it.

If you just want to troll for silly internet debate games, find someone else to play with you.

Last I checked, it was offer, acceptance, and consideration (with exceptions, of course). Unless all those casebooks were wrong? Honestly, I want to know what you are talking about. So far, you haven't given me any information.

9th May 2012, 12:08 PM	#41
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,658	Same here -- it's all you can eat, not all you can eat and carry out.
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

9th May 2012, 04:47 PM	#44
Monza Muse Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 930	Originally Posted by superfreddy Interesting point. It's just like going to the all you can eat buffet. You just don't take a bunch of dogie bags to resale them. It may not be specified but it's part of the "all you can eat" contract. This comparison is not quite right. It would be if the restaurant sold an unlimited dinner pass where the buyer could have dinner and also bring along a companion to eat free as well. Then the buyer tells his companion to give him a few bucks. Since it's less than the price of a dinner, the companion gets a great deal. The buyer makes some return on his investment. And the restaurant has to honor the contract they sold: a dinner to the buyer and his companion. The resaurant has already been paid by the buyer. Shame on them if they didn't charge enough.
Monza Muse Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 930

9th May 2012, 04:48 PM	#45
Monza Muse Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 930	Originally Posted by Modified Fortunately, it's "as much as you want to eat". "All you can eat" would be difficult to enforce. I was in Paris last year. In a small bistro, the owner refused to take away my friend's plate until he finished all of his vegatables. Difficult to enforce, but not impossible.
Monza Muse Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 930

9th May 2012, 04:52 PM	#46
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by superfreddy Interesting point. It's just like going to the all you can eat buffet. You just don't take a bunch of dogie bags to resale them. It may not be specified but it's part of the "all you can eat" contract. There is no 'all you can eat' contract. No one reasonably believes that the 'spirit of the program' in a buffet, is a contract for as much as you can possibly eat on or off premises for 8.95. And there is no contract at all when one party has interpereted an offer in such an irrational manner as to do away with the requisite 'meeting of the minds'. In the case of the airlines, there was clearly an intention to offer, and to accept an offer of high volume air travel for an extremely high price. The fact that the airline felt the need to go back and re-write the conditions in future contracts, serves as evidence that they knew they had miscalculated their profit margin, not that their original terms had been violated by the purchaser. Now I'm hungry.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

10th May 2012, 02:21 AM	#47
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,288	Originally Posted by crimresearch There is no 'all you can eat' contract. No one reasonably believes that the 'spirit of the program' in a buffet, is a contract for as much as you can possibly eat on or off premises for 8.95. I'm sorry, but can you clarify what this means? Of course eating at an "all you can eat" restaurant is a contract. Quote: And there is no contract at all when one party has interpereted an offer in such an irrational manner as to do away with the requisite 'meeting of the minds'. Contracts exist independently of the subjective belief of the parties. Quote: In the case of the airlines, there was clearly an intention to offer, and to accept an offer of high volume air travel for an extremely high price. The fact that the airline felt the need to go back and re-write the conditions in future contracts, serves as evidence that they knew they had miscalculated their profit margin, not that their original terms had been violated by the purchaser. That's your interpretation. Another interpretation would be that there were implied terms to the contract that were neither accepted nor denied by the written terms. And the airline's changes to future contracts only indicates their desire to eliminate confusion so they can avoid more legal battles in the future, it generally cannot be used as evidence to show that they know they don't have a legal leg to stand on. See for example Federal Rules of Evidence 407, which has been interpreted to also apply to breach of contract cases. ETA: Actually, I just glanced at the trial court opinion regarding Rothstein and it seems there is a provision in the contract against "fraudulent usage" (whatever that means) and a merger clause, and the Illinois judge ruled that Rothstein's actions were considered fraudulent usage. So we don't really need to figure out whether there was an implied term, we just need to figure out what the phrase "fraudulent usage" means.
	Last edited by tomwaits; 10th May 2012 at 02:36 AM.

9th May 2012, 12:23 PM	#42
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,288	Originally Posted by Horatius Actually, a lot of all you can eat places around here do specifically mention that, along with being charged extra if you waste food by taking it from the buffet but not eating it. But the point was that this restriction would probably be included in the contract between you and the restaurant regardless of whether it's mentioned or not. In addition, I believe getting food at a restaurant would be covered under the Uniform Commercial Code, which means the agreement is to be supplemented by custom and usage of trade.

9th May 2012, 04:36 PM	#43
Modified Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: SW Florida Posts: 4,062	Originally Posted by timhau Same here -- it's all you can eat, not all you can eat and carry out. Fortunately, it's "as much as you want to eat". "All you can eat" would be difficult to enforce.

10th May 2012, 06:23 AM	#48
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	Originally Posted by Damien Evans Maybe so, but If it was a choice between driving or flying from Sydney to Adelaide, I'd rather kill myself than drive. The Hay Plains are just that boring and depressing. It's basically 350 km of this: ...... And not much more interesting once you get to your destination, either.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

10th May 2012, 06:30 AM	#49
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin It would pass faster at 210 kph. I think that's what my speedo goes up to. Getting away with that is another matter. How picky are they about speeding? As an post-high school rite of passage, a mate and I drove from Melbourne to Perth in 32 hours. Not a bad average speed considering we had to wait in some god-forsaken hick town on Sunday morning for the petrol station owner to come back from church, and some mechanical repairs in Norseman on the the exhaust system I ripped off at the manifold and wrapped 'round the back axle after hitting a (dead) roo.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

10th May 2012, 07:04 AM	#50
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,989	Originally Posted by Damien Evans Maybe so, but If it was a choice between driving or flying from Sydney to Adelaide, I'd rather kill myself than drive. The Hay Plains are just that boring and depressing. It's basically 350 km of this: 350 km? That's only 3.5 hours at a leisurely pace. Much better than dealing with the idiocy and security hassles at an airport. I used to love to fly... not any more.

10th May 2012, 07:06 AM	#51
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,989	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay Indeed, Damien. (I'm not opposed to flying within Australia.) It's rather difficult to drive to another country from Australia, isn't it?

10th May 2012, 07:08 AM	#52
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,989	Originally Posted by Monza I was in Paris last year. In a small bistro, the owner refused to take away my friend's plate until he finished all of his vegatables. Difficult to enforce, but not impossible. Did he also try to get pudding before he ate his meat?

10th May 2012, 07:33 AM	#53
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by tomwaits I'm sorry, but can you clarify what this means? Of course eating at an "all you can eat" restaurant is a contract. Contracts exist independently of the subjective belief of the parties. That's your interpretation. Another interpretation would be that there were implied terms to the contract that were neither accepted nor denied by the written terms. And the airline's changes to future contracts only indicates their desire to eliminate confusion so they can avoid more legal battles in the future, it generally cannot be used as evidence to show that they know they don't have a legal leg to stand on. See for example Federal Rules of Evidence 407, which has been interpreted to also apply to breach of contract cases. ETA: Actually, I just glanced at the trial court opinion regarding Rothstein and it seems there is a provision in the contract against "fraudulent usage" (whatever that means) and a merger clause, and the Illinois judge ruled that Rothstein's actions were considered fraudulent usage. So we don't really need to figure out whether there was an implied term, we just need to figure out what the phrase "fraudulent usage" means. Your assertions are just that... your assertions. They happen to contradict what the legal community accepts as the required elements of a contract. That isn't my interpretation, that is the reality. If you want to find someone to 'prove' that reality to your satisfaction, pay for a lawyer, or take a law class.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

10th May 2012, 10:55 AM	#54
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,288	Originally Posted by crimresearch Your assertions are just that... your assertions. They happen to contradict what the legal community accepts as the required elements of a contract. That isn't my interpretation, that is the reality. If you want to find someone to 'prove' that reality to your satisfaction, pay for a lawyer, or take a law class. What are the required elements of a contract that an all you can eat buffet does not include?

10th May 2012, 11:52 AM	#55
Damien Evans Up The Irons Tagger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 25,284	Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin It would pass faster at 210 kph. I think that's what my speedo goes up to. Getting away with that is another matter. How picky are they about speeding? (I once crossed a distance close to this in an hour (on the clock anyway), but that was a combination of crossing a time zone, plus daylight savings time ending while I was on the road.) One day a year it's possible, in places that do the time change. Pretty damn picky. If you got caught going 210 they might just crush your car. Certainly in Victoria if you get caught doing something like that 3 times off goes your car, not to mention the massive fines and years of loss of licence. 210 speedo though? Pfft, even my 1999 Ford Laser (A Mazda 323 in a paper thin disguise) goes to 220 on the speedo. I doubt it'd reach it in real life though. I reckon if I pushed it to the limit it'd top out just under 200. Fastest I've ever done in it is 115 though.
	__________________ WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death "Racism is a disease in society. We're all equal. I don't care what their colour is, or religion. Just as long as they're human beings they're my buddies." - Mandawuy Yunupingu, lead singer of Yothu Yindi

10th May 2012, 11:57 AM	#56
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by tomwaits What are the required elements of a contract that an all you can eat buffet does not include? Spare me the strawmen. If you want to know what the elements of a contract are, look that up, if you want a legal education, pay for it. If you just want to troll for silly internet debate games, find someone else to play with you.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

10th May 2012, 11:57 AM	#57
Damien Evans Up The Irons Tagger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 25,284	Originally Posted by EHocking And not much more interesting once you get to your destination, either. Many have said that, but last time I went to Adelaide it was really nice. I suppose it helped that I was staying in Glenelg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenelg,_South_Australia
	__________________ WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death "Racism is a disease in society. We're all equal. I don't care what their colour is, or religion. Just as long as they're human beings they're my buddies." - Mandawuy Yunupingu, lead singer of Yothu Yindi

10th May 2012, 12:00 PM	#58
Damien Evans Up The Irons Tagger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 25,284	Originally Posted by WildCat Did he also try to get pudding before he ate his meat? Well played.
	__________________ WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death "Racism is a disease in society. We're all equal. I don't care what their colour is, or religion. Just as long as they're human beings they're my buddies." - Mandawuy Yunupingu, lead singer of Yothu Yindi

10th May 2012, 12:01 PM	#59
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,288	Originally Posted by crimresearch Spare me the strawmen. If you want to know what the elements of a contract are, look that up, if you want a legal education, pay for it. If you just want to troll for silly internet debate games, find someone else to play with you. Last I checked, it was offer, acceptance, and consideration (with exceptions, of course). Unless all those casebooks were wrong? Honestly, I want to know what you are talking about. So far, you haven't given me any information.