How to handle food 'no-shows'

Talking of fine weather, the Great British public has a rather cavalier approach to booking pub restaurants, as is clear from my postbag.

With much riding on the matter of filling your seats at the moment, a so-called "no-show" can cost you a great deal of money.

However, there have been a number of successful claims made by restaurateurs in recent years. It is now well established that a proprietor may pursue a claim for damages for breach of contract in the small-claims court.

First, though, it is important to know a little about the law of contract. We make a number of contracts every day of our lives, but very few of them are written down as such, on deeds or documents. There is no requirement, for a contract to be valid and binding on the parties, that it should be written down. All that is required is an offer and an acceptance, in the first instance.

A telephone booking to a restaurant is just such a form of contract. The customer, in fact, makes the offer of the contract, and the restaurateur or his agent accepts by confirming the reservation. Thereafter, there is in existence a valid legal contract, which may be held to be binding on both parties.

From the point of view of the restaurant proprietor, legal action is only likely when he has suffered a specified loss. If a customer cancels on a busy night, and he immediately fills the available space with other customers, then there can be no real grounds for action.

If, on the other hand, he holds a table for six people in reserve for a party in the middle of a busy Saturday evening, and turns people away from the restaurant because of this reservation, there is clearly a loss if the booked party fails to turn up and also fails to notify him.

In accordance with the contract, he has made the table available, as he is obliged to do, and allowed a reasonable time for the party to arrive (they could justifiably complain if the table had been given to someone else, unless prompt arrival had been made a main condition of the contract, which it rarely is). Their failure to attend, or to communicate with him in any way, is a breach of the contract, and an action for damages can be taken.

Q&A​

Arrangements for placing bets in a pub

Q. We have had discussions with a local licensed bookmaker about our summer televised sports schedule, to allow them to offer a betting facility on matches and competitions from within the pub to our customers. His idea seems to be that the customer in the pub could have direct telephone access to the bookmaker and we would collect the stake placed, as well as pay out any winnings. Money would be placed in a separate till. Could you advise us, as my associate director thinks this would not be legal.

A. Your colleague is quite right. The only part of the proposal that appears not to breach the law is the making of a telephone bet to the bookmaker's premises from the pub. As the actual bet is received and placed at the bookmaker's end of the telephone, no offence is committed on the premises from which the call is made.

But as soon as you start touching stakes and winnings, you are in trouble. This would effectively make you an agent of the bookmaker and would also mean that "betting transactions" were taking place on the licensed premises, which is entirely illegal. Conviction for either activity would undoubtedly jeopardise the licence. A few years ago, a south London licensee lost his pub licence in similar circumstances.

It makes no difference that the betting is on sports other than horse racing. I would stay clear of this scheme and tell the bookmaker concerned to take legal advice as soon as possible, as he could also be in trouble over the scheme.

Wine is now allowed​

Q. Can you confirm the law that youngsters under 18 can drink wine with a meal, even in the bar, under the Licensing Act?

A. The law has been changed around quite a bit in this area, and you should ensure that your staff know the whole new set of rules. Basically, as long as the drink is bought by an adult (over 18), a young person between 16 and 18 is allowed by law to drink wine, beer or cider with a table meal taken anywhere in the premises, including the bar.

In the past, the concession had been allowed for 16-year-olds to buy their own beer and cider to consume at a meal. But the meal had to be taken in a part of the premises set aside for meals, eg a restaurant or dining area.

Under the new law, as long as the qualifications are met on purchase (which prevent 16-year-olds buying their own alcoholic drinks), then the meal can be taken anywhere. In pubs that allow meal service in the main bar, therefore, youngsters may join in and be supplied with the specified drinks quite legally.

This is a difficult area and licensees will have to be on their guard in order to ensure that the situation is not abused. It is always open to the licence holder to ban consumption by under-18s entirely, if they think it is appropriate.

Drinking up is a concession, not a right​

Q. Early in the week we close in the afternoons. Recently, one or two customers have become very annoyed about this and have insisted on staying on, saying they have as long as they like to drink up. I want them to leave. Have they any rights on this?

A. This issue should not need a legal ruling, but it does crop up fairly regularly. They have no right to drinking-up time at all, but it would be unreasonable not to allow some time to consume drinks after they have been purchased.

You should conform to the "normal" drinking-up time of 20 minutes, even though in the afternoons it does not technically exist, and then insist that they leave. Drinking up is a concession, not a right, and they must comply with the licensee's instructions.