Scott

BD, I like your thinking I must say. Though I would ask one thing: isn't the point of tasting the wine to check it's condition, not whether 'you liked it'?

I think I was right the first time

Glenn, I agree. we are not getting anywhere here, other than worked up

Glenn, perhaps you'd care to disprove? after all your NYC experiences are particularly relevant to the running UK restaurants. as for Tosh - nice twist, that garbage about admin costs for a cancellation is utter fiction. do you pay a receptionist extra cash for a cancellation and re-organising a table plan? does it cost more to cancel at 3:00 and not 2:00? is there any evidence of a single penny extra in costs to the business about rearranging things? it's called being in business. tosh is as polite, if not more so than that assertion deserves.

I'm humbled by your perceptive insight. odd, but revealing that you somehow think it was directed at you? It was a general point, that there are those that do not seem to understand how a restaurant actually works, but rather how they think it might, or should work.

I eat in high and middle end restaurants a lot, and I have never seen that happen. could it be a reflection on the individual staff/restaurant than protocol at large.

Robyn, you make a good point, though perhaps it can add something. The odd thing is that few restaurants actually bother to call up their 'waitlist' in place of a cancellation or no show. that table goes to the next person to ring or show up. the credit card gives them no incentive to ring the waitlist, and surely you must act to mitigate your losses. incidentally, many, many non CC restaurants don't ring the wait list either. If you don't follow up your wait list, how important is a cancellation in the bigger picture really? Now, no doubt someone will be argue overly that this does not happen, they will be wrong, but that's another story.

Glenn, that is absolute, utter tosh.

which was?

Chris, as always helpful to a fault.

What are these? A leading supplier to many, many restaurants and one the best beef suppliers in the uk.

I always liked Donald Russell fillets.

I second this one. I took Luisa's advice on this one, and it was super. Ask them to match wines with each course.

I go there semi-regularly for the best wine list in the world, bar none. Astonishing breadth and value. The setting is certainly grand, and the view is amongst the very finest in the world. The food is, however, rubbish. Very expensive, and not frankly very good. If you want food go to L'ambroisie, if you want wine and food, Taillevent, if grand is your deal, maybe Le Cinq or Lucas Carton. Tour d'argent is great for lunch and lots of boozing.

I love the fat duck, but I would not have thought 3 stars. I can't believe, given the praise heaped on the actual cooking, that sketch doesn't warrant a star.

I use quite a few Stone & Vine Haynes hanson & clark Nickolls & Perks Uvine Handford Philglas & swiggot - good for new world, but overpriced. Seckford Bibendum

mini -Starters Laurent Perrier - ultra brut. non dose style. Beetroot with horseradish cream, light red, maybe bourgogne passetoutgrains? Oriental pork belly, try a barossa valley australian grenache with a little sweetness, something like the RBJ or Rushdens. cheese fondue Baumard, quarts du chaume.

It is legal -- the particular term relating to the penalty -- if it is a penalty -- is not binding. The cancellation fee is clearly not the consideration -- you are right there. If it is punitive then it is not binding -- but £20 or whatever seems reasonable not punitive and therefore binding. Legal but not binding...? Sorry that was very unclear. The contract will be legal and binding; but the particular term relating to the penalty (if such it is) will not be enforced. However in this case, it seems to be reasonable as an estimate of loss so it probably is valid. (IANAL) Except that these charges are NOT legal or binding. the charge is not related to loss, nor has an agreed method for calculating loss been worked into the contract.

Glenn, once again I think this has already been adequately explained.

It is legal -- the particular term relating to the penalty -- if it is a penalty -- is not binding. The cancellation fee is clearly not the consideration -- you are right there. If it is punitive then it is not binding -- but £20 or whatever seems reasonable not punitive and therefore binding. Legal but not binding...?

Glenn, perhaps you don't. but I think i made it explicitly clear why they are different.

No. I think that credit card bookings are entirely reasonable. You don't go on holiday without booking and paying for it - you take out insurance for last minute cancellations. By taking a credit card, the restaurant is taking out insurance. I can't help but think back to one of the initial points that Clerkenwellian came up with. HE/SHE HAD TO CANCEL BY 2.00PM - HE/SHE PHONED AT 3.00PM. Please help me here. What part of 2.00pm was not undserstood? To me, the initial phone call comes into the realms of contract law in England. An offer and acceptance took place. Consideration (legal def.) on both parts would have taken place if C had eaten there. However, C broke the contract, and therefore had to pay consideration as per the original contract to the restaurant. Scott, I can't help but feel you've not really taken in whats already been discussed. The nature of trade for a holiday is soooo different as to not be comparable to a restaurant. Holidays are things booked, often considerably, in advance, and as such a booking is more permanent in nature. The cash flow implications for the company are set, often there are FX hedging obligations to meet, and to a certain degree discounts may be offered for advance payment. The amount of revenue is set. Now what about this resembles a restaurant booking? The contract stuff also seems to miss the point, offer and acceptance is not what this is about. the point is that it is not legal to enter into such a contract, thus rendering acceptance and offer entirely meaningless. Also note, that if a contract had been entered into, (it hadn't) the quantum of any penalty cannot be implied into the contract. The cancellation fee is not the consideration, it's the punitive action. The consideration is payment for the meal. Your point of view seems to favour punishing a bad customer, which is neither legal nor good business sense.

Such an odd place, I can't recall a place that so aptly defines the concept of a meal being a 'whole experience'. Here the food is fabulous (though I might go to nahm instead), but the whole can be missing something. Odd, in that most places would be buzzing if the food was good.

I don't understand why anyone thinks a hotel policy is even the slightest bit relevant! They are different industries, that drive revenues in different ways. Airlines too - irrelevant.

Victor, I agree, but it would ne nice to see this wine stand on it own for quality rather than it's constituent parts. Only then, is it really possible to herald the revival of these varieties. Rather than through press release.