Just need some opinions

[newlawstudent]

NYC... A customer eats in a restaurant and tips the waiter. He then finds out that the waiter is required to give his tips to the owner.

a. What cause of action does the customer has and against whom?
b. Does it depend on whether the waiter is paid a munimum wage?
c. Does it depend on whether the owner is going broke and will have to close the restaurant if the tips are not given to him?
d. Does it depend on whether the customer tips the 'normal' 15% or more?
e. Given that waiters are known to share their tips with busboys and other employees, does it depend on whether the owner is personally involved in preparing the food?

[cbg]

Your name isn't George, is it?

[newlawstudent]

Do you have an input in this? I would really like to hear what others have to say

[cbg]

Never mind, if you were the guy I was thinking of, you'd know why I asked the question.

a. What cause of action does the customer has and against whom?

The customer has no cause of action.

b. Does it depend on whether the waiter is paid a munimum wage?

No. The customer has no cause of action.

c. Does it depend on whether the owner is going broke and will have to close the restaurant if the tips are not given to him?

No. The customer has no cause of action.

d. Does it depend on whether the customer tips the 'normal' 15% or more?

No. The customer has no cause of action.

e. Given that waiters are known to share their tips with busboys and other employees, does it depend on whether the owner is personally involved in preparing the food?

No. The customer has no cause of action.

Now, depending on what happens to the tip AFTER it is given to the owner, the WAITER may have a cause of action. But the only action the customer can take it is to take his business elsewhere.

[newlawstudent]

So is it because the customer already gave the tip for the service? and it really shouldn't matter to him how the tip is being disbursed. As long as he compensated the waiter for the service?

Was George in a situation as this?? Anyway what do you think of the following?

An film student gets permission from the owner to film a rock band performance in a night club in Manhattan as part of his MFA degree thesis and rents expensive equipment for that purpose. At the last minute he is told by the owner that the performance is cancelled because ofthe reports that the head of the band plans to kill himself as part of the act. The student sues to recover his rental fees and his wages lost as a result of the delay in starting a job that depended on his getting MFA degree on time. (This is a true case and such suicides have occurred)

a. What can he recover and on what basis?
b. Does it depend on whether he paid the owner to film or was given free use of the club?

Let me know what your ideas are. And no I'm not another friend of yours in this situation...

[cbg]

For the record, George is a poster who has been posting on this subject so often on another board that it almost constitutes spam. He seems to think that if he argues long enough, someone will give him the answer he wants to hear.

This board is for employment law issues, and your new question is beginning to stray from that topic. I'm afraid I'm not qualified to answer it.

[cbg]

Nothing to do with employment law either. Try the criminal law board for that one.