Here's the story if you want to read the whole thingSynopsis:
Ralph Paul and his girlfriend eat dinner at Angelino's restaurant. They order a full meal, drinks, and dessert. Ralph gets Seafood Verdura, which is pasta with 5 shrimp and 5 scallops, plus vegetables, which is the way the restaurant has prepared it for years with no problems. Ralph eats the seafood, decides that there should be more, and asks that more shrimp and scallops be put on his plate. He's told no, that's how the dish is made. So Ralph decides that he will only pay a portion of his bill, but the restaurant tells him no, you ordered it, you ate 14 bites of it, you pay for it. So Ralphie boy skips out on his bill.
He's later arrested for defrauding a business, goes to court - and wins. The jury said he didn't enter the restaurant planning on defrauding them, and they were impressed that he offered to pay at least part of the bill.
This is wrong on so many levels.
Let's start with Ralphie boy and his sense of entitlement, his sense of being better than everyone else. See, here's what happened: Ralph read the description of the dish on the menu, developed an idea in his head of what it should be, ordered the dish, and didn't like it when it didn't match his expectations. The chef did not promise him 10 shrimp and 10 scallops and then only put 5 of each on the dish. The description in the menu can't be that far off - they've offered the dish for years and never had a complaint. So what it boils down to is Ralphie got an idea in his head -
on his own, by himself - and then got ticked when his idea didn't come to fruition. He was not led to believe something that wasn't true, and the restaurant did not misrepresent the contents of the dish.
So Ralphie decides he wants more seafood. Tough noogies, Ralphie boy. Just because
you decide the dish should have more seafood doesn't mean the restaurant is obligated to give it to you. Just because
you interpreted the description to mean something it didn't, a problem many other diners apparently have not had, doesn't mean the restaurant has to bend over backwards. Why does Ralph think
he should get special treatment? Why does Ralph think that because
he has decided there isn't enough seafood on his plate, the restaurant should scurry to give him more? What makes Ralphie boy so special?
Here comes the best part. After eating
14 bites of the dish, Ralph decides he shouldn't have to pay for it. Never mind the fact that there is an implicit contract between a diner and a restaurant that diner will ask for a product, restaurant will provide that product, and then diner will pay for that product. Never mind the fact that Ralph ate a not-insignificant portion of the dish. No, Ralph decided he shouldn't have to pay for it, and that's that. What makes him so special that he can start dictating the terms of the agreement? Why does he suddenly get to tell the restaurant how things are going to go down? Ralph entered the restaurant of his own free will, they did not force him to enter or trick him to get him to come in. Ralph asked for a dish as described on the menu and the restaurant provided that dish in a reasonable manner and in a reasonable amount of time. Why does Ralph think he can suddenly decide that he doesn't have to hold up his end of the deal, especially after eating part of the dish?
But out of the goodness of his heart (?!) Ralph offers to pay for part of the meal. Man, I wish I could do that. I wish I could go drive a car off the lot, decide I don't like the engine, and just decide to take $10,000 off the price of the car - regardless of what the dealership thinks. Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't you love to go buy a new plasma flat-screen TV, decide that you don't like the remote, and just inform the dealer that you will be taking $50 off the price? Sweet. Well, that's what Ralphie boy did. He asked for food, the restaurant delivered as described, and he decided what he would and would not pay for. Why does
he get to do that, but I don't? What makes him so special?
So he walked out on his bill. The entire bill, including the drinks that they drank, the dish that his girlfriend ate, and the desserts that they both ate. He decided not to pay for any of it.
Ralphie says that he refuses to be intimidated. His lawyer says that he lives by a code of honor taught to him by his years in the Air Force. I could have sworn that a code of honor would dictate that if I ask for something and it is provided to me, I pay for it. Honor says that if you consume a meal, you pay for it. Honor says that you don't cheat a person out of money owed to them. Honor says that you acknowledge a disconnect between what you hoped for and what you got, re-align your expectations, and go on down the road. Honor doesn't cheat a business out of what is owed them. Ralphie boy wasn't intimidated, he was asked to hold up his end of the implicit agreement between patron and establishment. And good ol' Ralphie came up short on the honor thing, by a long shot.
If you order something and don't get what you expect, you point it out immediately, not after you've eaten a portion of it. Almost every restaurant I know will take the dish back and get you something else,
even though they really have no obligation to do so. If you don't like the way you were treated at a restaurant, you
pay your bill and never return.
Ralphie boy isn't an honorable man. He's a self-absorbed jerk who thinks the world revolves around him.
But then we get to the saddest part of all. The jury found him not guilty. The first mistake is that they misapplied the law - you don't have to enter an establishment with an intent to defraud. You can decide to defraud the establishment at any time, including after your meal when you decide not to pay for services and goods rendered in good faith. The fact that Ralph didn't decide to not pay his bill
before he went in is irrelevant. The fact is, at some point he decided to leave without paying, and that is defrauding the business right then and right there.
The second mistake is that the jury was impressed that he offered to pay part of his bill. That makes it okay? He offered to change the terms of the contract mid-stream, and when the other party (the restaurant) did not agree to the change in terms, it made it okay for Ralphie to void the contract completely? I think not.
This points out something I've been saying for a long time: We need to get rid of jury trials as they are carried out today. People sitting on juries a) don't understand the law, and b) are too easily swayed emotionally. The way I see it, we have two choices:
1. Make being a member of a jury an actual occupation. Professional jurists must study the basics of American law, the proper application of logic, and the appropriate use of emotion in the decision-making process. Then they must pass an exam, be certified, and get paid for hearing a case.
2. Do away with juries completely and have cases heard by 3, 5, or 7 judge panels (which, if you stop to think about it, is almost suggestion #1).
The worst part of all of this is that Ralphie-boy is being hailed as some kind of hero. He "stood up to the man." He refused to just sit back and take it. He stood up for himself and all us "little guys."
Bull----.
He went into a restaurant, got something other than what he decided on his own it should be, ate part of it, and ran out on his bill. Then he hired a lawyer who emotionally manipulated a jury into letting him get away with it.
Code of honor? More like a code of shame.
