A Spanish court judge ruled in favor of a two-Michelin-starred restaurant that charged three customers 510 euros for reserving a table for dinner and not showing up. This situation can occur in Portugal.
The sentence, now public knowledge, was handed down on March 1, after the client responsible for the reservation sued the restaurant for the amount charged.
Four days before the dinner, scheduled for July 16, 2021, the client confirmed his reservation, via email, for a table for three people at the Amelia restaurant, in San Sebastián (Basque Country).
Despite having spent the night at the Villa Favorita hotel, where the restaurant is located, the client missed dinner and did not request the cancellation of the reservation, which could have been done free of charge up to 72 hours before.
It was then in the morning of the next day, after going to the restaurant to confirm the appointment, that the man realized that the reservation was after all for the day before.
Three pay 510 euros, which would be 287 each
As he explained to the Spanish newspaper El País, the client changed the date of the hotel reservation, but forgot to do the same with the restaurant, assuming, at the same time, that the two would communicate the postponement.
Before debiting the amount, the restaurant proposed as a solution that the dinner take place 15 days later, an idea that the client refused.
In view of what happened, the establishment charged 510 euros -170 euros per person-, an amount that was stipulated in the cancellation regulation and that the client accepted when making the reservation online.
The client then claimed that the amount is disproportionate and that the restaurant’s cancellation policy is not clear, both when making the reservation and in the contacts that followed.
Chef Paulo Airaudo, owner of the restaurant, explained that the average price per person at the time of the events was 287 euros and that not showing up would harm the establishment, so the amount owed was more than justified.
The judge, who agreed with him, also quoted one of the restaurant’s managers who stated that the business “seeks excellence and distinction both in obtaining the raw material [lagosta da Escócia ou produtos originários do Japão, deu como exemplos]as well as in its preparation and subsequent presentation to the client”.
And in Portugal?
Regarding the client’s accusations about the lack of transparency in the cancellation policy, the judge defended that the clause was “written in a simple, easy and unequivocal way to understand, which, in no case, escapes the controls of incorporation and transparency and it must also be taken into account that the client is a notary”.
The restaurant acknowledged that the cancellation policy is strict, but defended itself by saying it exists to protect what it considers a “small business.”
asked by TSF If the same thing can happen in Portugal, the president of the National Restaurant Association (PRO.VAR), Daniel Serra, affirmed that yes and that cases like this “will obviously motivate businessmen to have, in similar situations, the courage and, at least, this attempt to seek a legal solution to be compensated for a loss they had”.
Despite not having, at this time, a record of a situation that occurred in Portugal identical to that of Spain, the president of PRO.VAR considered the decision taken by court “fair”, since its absence without cancellation could “be prejudiced” of the day”.
“We understand that it is fair. Therefore, if there is a reservation and if that reservation conditions the operation of the room, and we are talking, sometimes, in small restaurants, it can mean a high percentage of billing. The absence of a table may be the reason for the loss of the day of this house, “she underlined.
For Daniel Serra, “bad business is better with good demand”, for which reason the president of PRO.VAR revealed the desire that these examples serve so that “clients, in a certain way, have an awareness here”. [dos constrangimentos] and the businessman himself is also trying to reach an agreement”.
Source: TSF
