2 hours ago, Rodk said:An argument that puts the cart before the horse. If the item is made perfectly according to a horrible recipe, is it "proper" or "not proper"? And how does one prove it one way or the other on the spot without having the recipe, knowing whether the food was properly killed, prepared and stored, and so forth?
gfweb answered that one for you. You made the choice to eat there. pay the bill, chalk it up to a learning experience and don't go back. If you really feel the food was greatly inferior and not just not to your personal taste, tell everybody you know the place sucks. But if there's nothing wrong with the food other than you just didn't like it and you tell everybody the place sucks because they wouldn't give it to you for free, then you suck.
2 hours ago, Rodk said:I'm going to say that the Indian food was properly executed in all respects according to the recipe and the tradition but wholly bungled with respect to what an average first time diner would reasonably expect it to be.
If they serve authentic Indian food made well and to tradition, it's not their responsibility to figure out if the average first time diner will like authentic Indian food or not. If you're advertising you sell authentic Indian food, you're making that food for people you assume recognize and enjoy authentic Indian food. If you dumb it down, people who enjoy authentic Indian food will be doing their own version of your rant.
2 hours ago, Rodk said:I'm going to say the food in Washington was properly executed according to a horrible plan to surprise me with garbage, which it did.
You said the menu may or may not have told you what was coming but it didn't adequately prepare you for what arrived. In that situation, even if it was prepared as they intended it to be, they should have taken it back. But I wouldn't say they were obligated to if the menu did describe the dish accurately, I just think it would have been the smart call in that situation. "I didn't realize seasoned with fennel was going to mean it would taste like peppermint patty filling" (which I find odd because fennel fronds taste much more like anise/licorice to me) was easily remedied with "Can we bring you something else?" and you would have left happy instead of still being angry over it for however long it's been.
2 hours ago, Rodk said:I'm going to say the food in New Jersey was executed as the proprietor wanted it but without a plan to respect what they told me was coming, so fraud.
I'm going to say, if they served you fish on a bed of potatoes covered in confectioner's sugar and that sugar wasn't mentioned in the description, you were within reasonable right to object... health issues or not. Certainly, when you explained you are diabetic and wouldn't have ordered it if you had known it would be served that way, they should have offered a replacement. I'd classify that as badly prepared, whether it was according to their plan or not, but that aside, you made them aware that there was a valid reason you couldn't eat it. They should have done the right thing.
2 hours ago, Rodk said:Your simplified argument doesn't seem to answer the issue of breach given the circumstances.
I just said the same thing I said before, just in a much more long-winded form... can we be friends now? 
