Whoever said dining out was an easy decision clearly hasn't been to an Australian restaurant in a while!

Just as there are many aspects to consider when it comes to knowing which eatery is best for you, there are also some instances that demand—quite literally—that you pay closer attention to the menu itself.

As evidenced by this Sydney restaurant, whose menu has recently gone viral on social media, extra caution and double-checking are required when it comes to certain establishments.

Taking to the popular forum website Reddit, an Aussie diner shared a photo of the back of the menu, quickly attracting the attention of many users who found themselves divided over whether the restaurant's unusual request was fair or not.

An unconventional policy at a restaurant in Sydney has ignited a debate regarding its fairness. Credit: Reddit.

'Is this common practice for restaurants to require a minimum spend?' the user asked, referring to a note on the back of the menu that stated a minimum 'dine in' spending requirement of $20 per person and a $30 'no show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.

'This is calculated from the average spend per customer,' explained the restaurant.

The unusual statement sparked a fierce debate online, with opinions varying on whether such a minimum spending requirement and 'no-show' surcharge was justified.

In the restaurant's defence, some people agreed with the decision to charge for a minimum spend. 'It's not common, but if the place is small and people are coming just for a chat, then it makes sense,' commented one individual.

Another empathised with the restaurant's plight: 'For small, local businesses, especially with limited seating, it can be very frustrating to have groups of people come in and just order a couple of items and use the place as a hang-out spot and spend hours there.'

'Honestly, this seems reasonable. You don't want six people to show up and share a plate of hot chips,' added a third supporter of the policy.

On the other hand, a number of people found the requirement unfair and potentially off-putting.

'Not common, and I hope it doesn't become common. If they want to enforce it, that's fine, but I'm going to eat somewhere I won't feel like a burden for wanting to sit and enjoy an $18 pasta dish,' stated one disgruntled commenter.

'My only real gripe is if you can easily buy a meal and drink for under the minimum spend, essentially forcing you to buy something you don't want,' another user chimed in.

Opinions on the minimum spending requirement were divided among commenters. Credit: Pexels/Lisa Fotios.

Opinions were also sharply divided when it came to the $30 'no-show' fee. Some argued in favour of the surcharge, with one pointing out that not showing up is a 'massive loss for the company'.

Another person added, 'This type of thing exists to prevent people who book a table of eight and literally do not turn up and don't call in advance. Now you've got an empty table on a Saturday night that could have gone to someone else. People like this should pay.'

On the flip side, some remained unconvinced that the surcharge was justified and even suggested alternative solutions.

'Charging for no-shows is unconscionable. People could make a booking in the best of faith, and one or more members of their party could fall ill,' one concerned commenter said.

'Seems these folks have problems associated with reservations. Just switch to no bookings,' another user advised.

Key Takeaways

• An Aussie diner posted a picture of a Sydney restaurant's menu on social media, sparking a debate over its minimum spend and 'no-show' fee requirements.
• The restaurant requires a minimum 'dine-in' spending of $20 per person and imposes a $30 'no-show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.
• While some commenters thought the minimum spending requirement was reasonable to support small businesses with limited seating, others felt it was an unfair demand.
• Opinions on the $30 'no-show' fee were also divided, with some arguing it compensates for potential loss of income, while others found it unjustified and suggested alternative measures such as not accepting reservations.

As you can see, this Aussie restaurant's menu request certainly struck a chord in the online community. Members, we're super curious to know what you think about it. Is it fair for a restaurant to have minimum spending requirements and charge a 'no-show' fee? Or do you think these demands are a bit over the top?

We'd love to hear your opinions on this one! Let's get the conversation going in the comments below!

 

[Luckyus]

Whoever said dining out was an easy decision clearly hasn't been to an Australian restaurant in a while!

Just as there are many aspects to consider when it comes to knowing which eatery is best for you, there are also some instances that demand—quite literally—that you pay closer attention to the menu itself.

As evidenced by this Sydney restaurant, whose menu has recently gone viral on social media, extra caution and double-checking are required when it comes to certain establishments.

Taking to the popular forum website Reddit, an Aussie diner shared a photo of the back of the menu, quickly attracting the attention of many users who found themselves divided over whether the restaurant's unusual request was fair or not.

View attachment 23441

An unconventional policy at a restaurant in Sydney has ignited a debate regarding its fairness. Credit: Reddit.

'Is this common practice for restaurants to require a minimum spend?' the user asked, referring to a note on the back of the menu that stated a minimum 'dine in' spending requirement of $20 per person and a $30 'no show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.

'This is calculated from the average spend per customer,' explained the restaurant.

The unusual statement sparked a fierce debate online, with opinions varying on whether such a minimum spending requirement and 'no-show' surcharge was justified.

In the restaurant's defence, some people agreed with the decision to charge for a minimum spend. 'It's not common, but if the place is small and people are coming just for a chat, then it makes sense,' commented one individual.

Another empathised with the restaurant's plight: 'For small, local businesses, especially with limited seating, it can be very frustrating to have groups of people come in and just order a couple of items and use the place as a hang-out spot and spend hours there.'

'Honestly, this seems reasonable. You don't want six people to show up and share a plate of hot chips,' added a third supporter of the policy.

On the other hand, a number of people found the requirement unfair and potentially off-putting.

'Not common, and I hope it doesn't become common. If they want to enforce it, that's fine, but I'm going to eat somewhere I won't feel like a burden for wanting to sit and enjoy an $18 pasta dish,' stated one disgruntled commenter.

'My only real gripe is if you can easily buy a meal and drink for under the minimum spend, essentially forcing you to buy something you don't want,' another user chimed in.

View attachment 23440

Opinions on the minimum spending requirement were divided among commenters. Credit: Pexels/Lisa Fotios.

Opinions were also sharply divided when it came to the $30 'no-show' fee. Some argued in favour of the surcharge, with one pointing out that not showing up is a 'massive loss for the company'.

Another person added, 'This type of thing exists to prevent people who book a table of eight and literally do not turn up and don't call in advance. Now you've got an empty table on a Saturday night that could have gone to someone else. People like this should pay.'

On the flip side, some remained unconvinced that the surcharge was justified and even suggested alternative solutions.

'Charging for no-shows is unconscionable. People could make a booking in the best of faith, and one or more members of their party could fall ill,' one concerned commenter said.

'Seems these folks have problems associated with reservations. Just switch to no bookings,' another user advised.

Key Takeaways

• An Aussie diner posted a picture of a Sydney restaurant's menu on social media, sparking a debate over its minimum spend and 'no-show' fee requirements.
• The restaurant requires a minimum 'dine-in' spending of $20 per person and imposes a $30 'no-show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.
• While some commenters thought the minimum spending requirement was reasonable to support small businesses with limited seating, others felt it was an unfair demand.
• Opinions on the $30 'no-show' fee were also divided, with some arguing it compensates for potential loss of income, while others found it unjustified and suggested alternative measures such as not accepting reservations.

As you can see, this Aussie restaurant's menu request certainly struck a chord in the online community. Members, we're super curious to know what you think about it. Is it fair for a restaurant to have minimum spending requirements and charge a 'no-show' fee? Or do you think these demands are a bit over the top?

We'd love to hear your opinions on this one! Let's get the conversation going in the comments below!

I've heard of being charged corkage for BYO wines, but cakeage is that if you bring your own dessert?

 

[Suzanne rose]

I've heard of being charged corkage for BYO wines, but cakeage is that if you bring your own dessert?

Alot of places have been charging cakeage for ages usually around $50. This is you bringing your own cake but the cakeage is for them serving it and no they don't let you cut it yourself.

 

[ElizabethL]

I wouldn’t be dining at that restaurant.

 

[Suzanne rose]

I actually agree with the no show price, if you call and cancel they don't usually charge . This charge is what it us saying NO SHOW.
No show is very rude , it doesn't take much to call and cancel, no show is stopping others eating there and resulting in loss of money for the restaurants

I worked in bridal in a Wedding dress boutique and we did mostly by appointments , I cant say how many times a bride was a no show, so in the end we charged a $50 fee to book and if they came in and purchased a dress they got it taken off the price

Why did we charge ?
1. Because of the no shows.
2. Because brides would come in to try dresses to see what suited before having made to measure
3. Brides seeing what suited them so they could buy inline.
All of the above costed the owners money as trying on bridal dresses requested a lady helping them including helping them into the dress . So by me helping them cost my boss $38 for each hour I helped them

I also agree that they charge a minimum spend, but should be the cost of their lowest menu item.

 

[Jest]

Whoever said dining out was an easy decision clearly hasn't been to an Australian restaurant in a while!

Just as there are many aspects to consider when it comes to knowing which eatery is best for you, there are also some instances that demand—quite literally—that you pay closer attention to the menu itself.

As evidenced by this Sydney restaurant, whose menu has recently gone viral on social media, extra caution and double-checking are required when it comes to certain establishments.

Taking to the popular forum website Reddit, an Aussie diner shared a photo of the back of the menu, quickly attracting the attention of many users who found themselves divided over whether the restaurant's unusual request was fair or not.

View attachment 23441

An unconventional policy at a restaurant in Sydney has ignited a debate regarding its fairness. Credit: Reddit.

'Is this common practice for restaurants to require a minimum spend?' the user asked, referring to a note on the back of the menu that stated a minimum 'dine in' spending requirement of $20 per person and a $30 'no show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.

'This is calculated from the average spend per customer,' explained the restaurant.

The unusual statement sparked a fierce debate online, with opinions varying on whether such a minimum spending requirement and 'no-show' surcharge was justified.

In the restaurant's defence, some people agreed with the decision to charge for a minimum spend. 'It's not common, but if the place is small and people are coming just for a chat, then it makes sense,' commented one individual.

Another empathised with the restaurant's plight: 'For small, local businesses, especially with limited seating, it can be very frustrating to have groups of people come in and just order a couple of items and use the place as a hang-out spot and spend hours there.'

'Honestly, this seems reasonable. You don't want six people to show up and share a plate of hot chips,' added a third supporter of the policy.

On the other hand, a number of people found the requirement unfair and potentially off-putting.

'Not common, and I hope it doesn't become common. If they want to enforce it, that's fine, but I'm going to eat somewhere I won't feel like a burden for wanting to sit and enjoy an $18 pasta dish,' stated one disgruntled commenter.

'My only real gripe is if you can easily buy a meal and drink for under the minimum spend, essentially forcing you to buy something you don't want,' another user chimed in.

View attachment 23440

Opinions on the minimum spending requirement were divided among commenters. Credit: Pexels/Lisa Fotios.

Opinions were also sharply divided when it came to the $30 'no-show' fee. Some argued in favour of the surcharge, with one pointing out that not showing up is a 'massive loss for the company'.

Another person added, 'This type of thing exists to prevent people who book a table of eight and literally do not turn up and don't call in advance. Now you've got an empty table on a Saturday night that could have gone to someone else. People like this should pay.'

On the flip side, some remained unconvinced that the surcharge was justified and even suggested alternative solutions.

'Charging for no-shows is unconscionable. People could make a booking in the best of faith, and one or more members of their party could fall ill,' one concerned commenter said.

'Seems these folks have problems associated with reservations. Just switch to no bookings,' another user advised.

Key Takeaways

• An Aussie diner posted a picture of a Sydney restaurant's menu on social media, sparking a debate over its minimum spend and 'no-show' fee requirements.
• The restaurant requires a minimum 'dine-in' spending of $20 per person and imposes a $30 'no-show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.
• While some commenters thought the minimum spending requirement was reasonable to support small businesses with limited seating, others felt it was an unfair demand.
• Opinions on the $30 'no-show' fee were also divided, with some arguing it compensates for potential loss of income, while others found it unjustified and suggested alternative measures such as not accepting reservations.

As you can see, this Aussie restaurant's menu request certainly struck a chord in the online community. Members, we're super curious to know what you think about it. Is it fair for a restaurant to have minimum spending requirements and charge a 'no-show' fee? Or do you think these demands are a bit over the top?

We'd love to hear your opinions on this one! Let's get the conversation going in the comments below!

i would be a permanent no show.

 

[NotNats]

Whoever said dining out was an easy decision clearly hasn't been to an Australian restaurant in a while!

Just as there are many aspects to consider when it comes to knowing which eatery is best for you, there are also some instances that demand—quite literally—that you pay closer attention to the menu itself.

As evidenced by this Sydney restaurant, whose menu has recently gone viral on social media, extra caution and double-checking are required when it comes to certain establishments.

Taking to the popular forum website Reddit, an Aussie diner shared a photo of the back of the menu, quickly attracting the attention of many users who found themselves divided over whether the restaurant's unusual request was fair or not.

View attachment 23441

An unconventional policy at a restaurant in Sydney has ignited a debate regarding its fairness. Credit: Reddit.

'Is this common practice for restaurants to require a minimum spend?' the user asked, referring to a note on the back of the menu that stated a minimum 'dine in' spending requirement of $20 per person and a $30 'no show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.

'This is calculated from the average spend per customer,' explained the restaurant.

The unusual statement sparked a fierce debate online, with opinions varying on whether such a minimum spending requirement and 'no-show' surcharge was justified.

In the restaurant's defence, some people agreed with the decision to charge for a minimum spend. 'It's not common, but if the place is small and people are coming just for a chat, then it makes sense,' commented one individual.

Another empathised with the restaurant's plight: 'For small, local businesses, especially with limited seating, it can be very frustrating to have groups of people come in and just order a couple of items and use the place as a hang-out spot and spend hours there.'

'Honestly, this seems reasonable. You don't want six people to show up and share a plate of hot chips,' added a third supporter of the policy.

On the other hand, a number of people found the requirement unfair and potentially off-putting.

'Not common, and I hope it doesn't become common. If they want to enforce it, that's fine, but I'm going to eat somewhere I won't feel like a burden for wanting to sit and enjoy an $18 pasta dish,' stated one disgruntled commenter.

'My only real gripe is if you can easily buy a meal and drink for under the minimum spend, essentially forcing you to buy something you don't want,' another user chimed in.

View attachment 23440

Opinions on the minimum spending requirement were divided among commenters. Credit: Pexels/Lisa Fotios.

Opinions were also sharply divided when it came to the $30 'no-show' fee. Some argued in favour of the surcharge, with one pointing out that not showing up is a 'massive loss for the company'.

Another person added, 'This type of thing exists to prevent people who book a table of eight and literally do not turn up and don't call in advance. Now you've got an empty table on a Saturday night that could have gone to someone else. People like this should pay.'

On the flip side, some remained unconvinced that the surcharge was justified and even suggested alternative solutions.

'Charging for no-shows is unconscionable. People could make a booking in the best of faith, and one or more members of their party could fall ill,' one concerned commenter said.

'Seems these folks have problems associated with reservations. Just switch to no bookings,' another user advised.

Key Takeaways

• An Aussie diner posted a picture of a Sydney restaurant's menu on social media, sparking a debate over its minimum spend and 'no-show' fee requirements.
• The restaurant requires a minimum 'dine-in' spending of $20 per person and imposes a $30 'no-show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.
• While some commenters thought the minimum spending requirement was reasonable to support small businesses with limited seating, others felt it was an unfair demand.
• Opinions on the $30 'no-show' fee were also divided, with some arguing it compensates for potential loss of income, while others found it unjustified and suggested alternative measures such as not accepting reservations.

As you can see, this Aussie restaurant's menu request certainly struck a chord in the online community. Members, we're super curious to know what you think about it. Is it fair for a restaurant to have minimum spending requirements and charge a 'no-show' fee? Or do you think these demands are a bit over the top?

We'd love to hear your opinions on this one! Let's get the conversation going in the comments below!

And people wonder why I no longer eat out.

 

[Thecheesequeen]

It’s not always the fault of the person who booked if one or more of the party doesn’t turn up. Accidents happen, sometimes people get sick, sometimes they forgot about an event. Whose responsibility is it to pay for the phantom diners? I would be pretty annoyed if I was asked to pay for the cost of a meal for someone who didn’t eat. If one or more of my party didn’t bother to let me know they weren’t able to attend, I would be annoyed at them too.

 

[Jay Jay]

Whoever said dining out was an easy decision clearly hasn't been to an Australian restaurant in a while!

Just as there are many aspects to consider when it comes to knowing which eatery is best for you, there are also some instances that demand—quite literally—that you pay closer attention to the menu itself.

As evidenced by this Sydney restaurant, whose menu has recently gone viral on social media, extra caution and double-checking are required when it comes to certain establishments.

Taking to the popular forum website Reddit, an Aussie diner shared a photo of the back of the menu, quickly attracting the attention of many users who found themselves divided over whether the restaurant's unusual request was fair or not.

View attachment 23441

An unconventional policy at a restaurant in Sydney has ignited a debate regarding its fairness. Credit: Reddit.

'Is this common practice for restaurants to require a minimum spend?' the user asked, referring to a note on the back of the menu that stated a minimum 'dine in' spending requirement of $20 per person and a $30 'no show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.

'This is calculated from the average spend per customer,' explained the restaurant.

The unusual statement sparked a fierce debate online, with opinions varying on whether such a minimum spending requirement and 'no-show' surcharge was justified.

In the restaurant's defence, some people agreed with the decision to charge for a minimum spend. 'It's not common, but if the place is small and people are coming just for a chat, then it makes sense,' commented one individual.

Another empathised with the restaurant's plight: 'For small, local businesses, especially with limited seating, it can be very frustrating to have groups of people come in and just order a couple of items and use the place as a hang-out spot and spend hours there.'

'Honestly, this seems reasonable. You don't want six people to show up and share a plate of hot chips,' added a third supporter of the policy.

On the other hand, a number of people found the requirement unfair and potentially off-putting.

'Not common, and I hope it doesn't become common. If they want to enforce it, that's fine, but I'm going to eat somewhere I won't feel like a burden for wanting to sit and enjoy an $18 pasta dish,' stated one disgruntled commenter.

'My only real gripe is if you can easily buy a meal and drink for under the minimum spend, essentially forcing you to buy something you don't want,' another user chimed in.

View attachment 23440

Opinions on the minimum spending requirement were divided among commenters. Credit: Pexels/Lisa Fotios.

Opinions were also sharply divided when it came to the $30 'no-show' fee. Some argued in favour of the surcharge, with one pointing out that not showing up is a 'massive loss for the company'.

Another person added, 'This type of thing exists to prevent people who book a table of eight and literally do not turn up and don't call in advance. Now you've got an empty table on a Saturday night that could have gone to someone else. People like this should pay.'

On the flip side, some remained unconvinced that the surcharge was justified and even suggested alternative solutions.

'Charging for no-shows is unconscionable. People could make a booking in the best of faith, and one or more members of their party could fall ill,' one concerned commenter said.

'Seems these folks have problems associated with reservations. Just switch to no bookings,' another user advised.

Key Takeaways

• An Aussie diner posted a picture of a Sydney restaurant's menu on social media, sparking a debate over its minimum spend and 'no-show' fee requirements.
• The restaurant requires a minimum 'dine-in' spending of $20 per person and imposes a $30 'no-show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.
• While some commenters thought the minimum spending requirement was reasonable to support small businesses with limited seating, others felt it was an unfair demand.
• Opinions on the $30 'no-show' fee were also divided, with some arguing it compensates for potential loss of income, while others found it unjustified and suggested alternative measures such as not accepting reservations.

As you can see, this Aussie restaurant's menu request certainly struck a chord in the online community. Members, we're super curious to know what you think about it. Is it fair for a restaurant to have minimum spending requirements and charge a 'no-show' fee? Or do you think these demands are a bit over the top?

We'd love to hear your opinions on this one! Let's get the conversation going in the comments

Whoever said dining out was an easy decision clearly hasn't been to an Australian restaurant in a while!

Just as there are many aspects to consider when it comes to knowing which eatery is best for you, there are also some instances that demand—quite literally—that you pay closer attention to the menu itself.

As evidenced by this Sydney restaurant, whose menu has recently gone viral on social media, extra caution and double-checking are required when it comes to certain establishments.

Taking to the popular forum website Reddit, an Aussie diner shared a photo of the back of the menu, quickly attracting the attention of many users who found themselves divided over whether the restaurant's unusual request was fair or not.

View attachment 23441

An unconventional policy at a restaurant in Sydney has ignited a debate regarding its fairness. Credit: Reddit.

'Is this common practice for restaurants to require a minimum spend?' the user asked, referring to a note on the back of the menu that stated a minimum 'dine in' spending requirement of $20 per person and a $30 'no show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.

'This is calculated from the average spend per customer,' explained the restaurant.

The unusual statement sparked a fierce debate online, with opinions varying on whether such a minimum spending requirement and 'no-show' surcharge was justified.

In the restaurant's defence, some people agreed with the decision to charge for a minimum spend. 'It's not common, but if the place is small and people are coming just for a chat, then it makes sense,' commented one individual.

Another empathised with the restaurant's plight: 'For small, local businesses, especially with limited seating, it can be very frustrating to have groups of people come in and just order a couple of items and use the place as a hang-out spot and spend hours there.'

'Honestly, this seems reasonable. You don't want six people to show up and share a plate of hot chips,' added a third supporter of the policy.

On the other hand, a number of people found the requirement unfair and potentially off-putting.

'Not common, and I hope it doesn't become common. If they want to enforce it, that's fine, but I'm going to eat somewhere I won't feel like a burden for wanting to sit and enjoy an $18 pasta dish,' stated one disgruntled commenter.

'My only real gripe is if you can easily buy a meal and drink for under the minimum spend, essentially forcing you to buy something you don't want,' another user chimed in.

View attachment 23440

Opinions on the minimum spending requirement were divided among commenters. Credit: Pexels/Lisa Fotios.

Opinions were also sharply divided when it came to the $30 'no-show' fee. Some argued in favour of the surcharge, with one pointing out that not showing up is a 'massive loss for the company'.

Another person added, 'This type of thing exists to prevent people who book a table of eight and literally do not turn up and don't call in advance. Now you've got an empty table on a Saturday night that could have gone to someone else. People like this should pay.'

On the flip side, some remained unconvinced that the surcharge was justified and even suggested alternative solutions.

'Charging for no-shows is unconscionable. People could make a booking in the best of faith, and one or more members of their party could fall ill,' one concerned commenter said.

'Seems these folks have problems associated with reservations. Just switch to no bookings,' another user advised.

Key Takeaways

• An Aussie diner posted a picture of a Sydney restaurant's menu on social media, sparking a debate over its minimum spend and 'no-show' fee requirements.
• The restaurant requires a minimum 'dine-in' spending of $20 per person and imposes a $30 'no-show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.
• While some commenters thought the minimum spending requirement was reasonable to support small businesses with limited seating, others felt it was an unfair demand.
• Opinions on the $30 'no-show' fee were also divided, with some arguing it compensates for potential loss of income, while others found it unjustified and suggested alternative measures such as not accepting reservations.

As you can see, this Aussie restaurant's menu request certainly struck a chord in the online community. Members, we're super curious to know what you think about it. Is it fair for a restaurant to have minimum spending requirements and charge a 'no-show' fee? Or do you think these demands are a bit over the top?

We'd love to hear your opinions on this one! Let's get the conversation going in

 

[Jay Jay]

I would definitely not patronise an establishment which set such unreasonable demands. This is not the way to entice, much less keep, happy customers.

Of course, maybe they are not wanting 'toastie and coffee' customers, and this is their way of discouraging pensioners!

Big 'thumbs down' to this business.

 

[Mindygirl12022]

Whoever said dining out was an easy decision clearly hasn't been to an Australian restaurant in a while!

Just as there are many aspects to consider when it comes to knowing which eatery is best for you, there are also some instances that demand—quite literally—that you pay closer attention to the menu itself.

As evidenced by this Sydney restaurant, whose menu has recently gone viral on social media, extra caution and double-checking are required when it comes to certain establishments.

Taking to the popular forum website Reddit, an Aussie diner shared a photo of the back of the menu, quickly attracting the attention of many users who found themselves divided over whether the restaurant's unusual request was fair or not.

View attachment 23441

An unconventional policy at a restaurant in Sydney has ignited a debate regarding its fairness. Credit: Reddit.

'Is this common practice for restaurants to require a minimum spend?' the user asked, referring to a note on the back of the menu that stated a minimum 'dine in' spending requirement of $20 per person and a $30 'no show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.

'This is calculated from the average spend per customer,' explained the restaurant.

The unusual statement sparked a fierce debate online, with opinions varying on whether such a minimum spending requirement and 'no-show' surcharge was justified.

In the restaurant's defence, some people agreed with the decision to charge for a minimum spend. 'It's not common, but if the place is small and people are coming just for a chat, then it makes sense,' commented one individual.

Another empathised with the restaurant's plight: 'For small, local businesses, especially with limited seating, it can be very frustrating to have groups of people come in and just order a couple of items and use the place as a hang-out spot and spend hours there.'

'Honestly, this seems reasonable. You don't want six people to show up and share a plate of hot chips,' added a third supporter of the policy.

On the other hand, a number of people found the requirement unfair and potentially off-putting.

'Not common, and I hope it doesn't become common. If they want to enforce it, that's fine, but I'm going to eat somewhere I won't feel like a burden for wanting to sit and enjoy an $18 pasta dish,' stated one disgruntled commenter.

'My only real gripe is if you can easily buy a meal and drink for under the minimum spend, essentially forcing you to buy something you don't want,' another user chimed in.

View attachment 23440

Opinions on the minimum spending requirement were divided among commenters. Credit: Pexels/Lisa Fotios.

Opinions were also sharply divided when it came to the $30 'no-show' fee. Some argued in favour of the surcharge, with one pointing out that not showing up is a 'massive loss for the company'.

Another person added, 'This type of thing exists to prevent people who book a table of eight and literally do not turn up and don't call in advance. Now you've got an empty table on a Saturday night that could have gone to someone else. People like this should pay.'

On the flip side, some remained unconvinced that the surcharge was justified and even suggested alternative solutions.

'Charging for no-shows is unconscionable. People could make a booking in the best of faith, and one or more members of their party could fall ill,' one concerned commenter said.

'Seems these folks have problems associated with reservations. Just switch to no bookings,' another user advised.

Key Takeaways

• An Aussie diner posted a picture of a Sydney restaurant's menu on social media, sparking a debate over its minimum spend and 'no-show' fee requirements.
• The restaurant requires a minimum 'dine-in' spending of $20 per person and imposes a $30 'no-show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.
• While some commenters thought the minimum spending requirement was reasonable to support small businesses with limited seating, others felt it was an unfair demand.
• Opinions on the $30 'no-show' fee were also divided, with some arguing it compensates for potential loss of income, while others found it unjustified and suggested alternative measures such as not accepting reservations.

As you can see, this Aussie restaurant's menu request certainly struck a chord in the online community. Members, we're super curious to know what you think about it. Is it fair for a restaurant to have minimum spending requirements and charge a 'no-show' fee? Or do you think these demands are a bit over the top?

We'd love to hear your opinions on this one! Let's get the conversation going in the comments below!

Best and easiest thing if you don't approve (which I don't) is just don't go to this restaurant.

 

[bev_l]

Whoever said dining out was an easy decision clearly hasn't been to an Australian restaurant in a while!

Just as there are many aspects to consider when it comes to knowing which eatery is best for you, there are also some instances that demand—quite literally—that you pay closer attention to the menu itself.

As evidenced by this Sydney restaurant, whose menu has recently gone viral on social media, extra caution and double-checking are required when it comes to certain establishments.

Taking to the popular forum website Reddit, an Aussie diner shared a photo of the back of the menu, quickly attracting the attention of many users who found themselves divided over whether the restaurant's unusual request was fair or not.

View attachment 23441

An unconventional policy at a restaurant in Sydney has ignited a debate regarding its fairness. Credit: Reddit.

'Is this common practice for restaurants to require a minimum spend?' the user asked, referring to a note on the back of the menu that stated a minimum 'dine in' spending requirement of $20 per person and a $30 'no show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.

'This is calculated from the average spend per customer,' explained the restaurant.

The unusual statement sparked a fierce debate online, with opinions varying on whether such a minimum spending requirement and 'no-show' surcharge was justified.

In the restaurant's defence, some people agreed with the decision to charge for a minimum spend. 'It's not common, but if the place is small and people are coming just for a chat, then it makes sense,' commented one individual.

Another empathised with the restaurant's plight: 'For small, local businesses, especially with limited seating, it can be very frustrating to have groups of people come in and just order a couple of items and use the place as a hang-out spot and spend hours there.'

'Honestly, this seems reasonable. You don't want six people to show up and share a plate of hot chips,' added a third supporter of the policy.

On the other hand, a number of people found the requirement unfair and potentially off-putting.

'Not common, and I hope it doesn't become common. If they want to enforce it, that's fine, but I'm going to eat somewhere I won't feel like a burden for wanting to sit and enjoy an $18 pasta dish,' stated one disgruntled commenter.

'My only real gripe is if you can easily buy a meal and drink for under the minimum spend, essentially forcing you to buy something you don't want,' another user chimed in.

View attachment 23440

Opinions on the minimum spending requirement were divided among commenters. Credit: Pexels/Lisa Fotios.

Opinions were also sharply divided when it came to the $30 'no-show' fee. Some argued in favour of the surcharge, with one pointing out that not showing up is a 'massive loss for the company'.

Another person added, 'This type of thing exists to prevent people who book a table of eight and literally do not turn up and don't call in advance. Now you've got an empty table on a Saturday night that could have gone to someone else. People like this should pay.'

On the flip side, some remained unconvinced that the surcharge was justified and even suggested alternative solutions.

'Charging for no-shows is unconscionable. People could make a booking in the best of faith, and one or more members of their party could fall ill,' one concerned commenter said.

'Seems these folks have problems associated with reservations. Just switch to no bookings,' another user advised.

Key Takeaways

• An Aussie diner posted a picture of a Sydney restaurant's menu on social media, sparking a debate over its minimum spend and 'no-show' fee requirements.
• The restaurant requires a minimum 'dine-in' spending of $20 per person and imposes a $30 'no-show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.
• While some commenters thought the minimum spending requirement was reasonable to support small businesses with limited seating, others felt it was an unfair demand.
• Opinions on the $30 'no-show' fee were also divided, with some arguing it compensates for potential loss of income, while others found it unjustified and suggested alternative measures such as not accepting reservations.

As you can see, this Aussie restaurant's menu request certainly struck a chord in the online community. Members, we're super curious to know what you think about it. Is it fair for a restaurant to have minimum spending requirements and charge a 'no-show' fee? Or do you think these demands are a bit over the top?

We'd love to hear your opinions on this one! Let's get the conversation going in the comments below!

Whoever said dining out was an easy decision clearly hasn't been to an Australian restaurant in a while!

Just as there are many aspects to consider when it comes to knowing which eatery is best for you, there are also some instances that demand—quite literally—that you pay closer attention to the menu itself.

As evidenced by this Sydney restaurant, whose menu has recently gone viral on social media, extra caution and double-checking are required when it comes to certain establishments.

Taking to the popular forum website Reddit, an Aussie diner shared a photo of the back of the menu, quickly attracting the attention of many users who found themselves divided over whether the restaurant's unusual request was fair or not.

View attachment 23441

An unconventional policy at a restaurant in Sydney has ignited a debate regarding its fairness. Credit: Reddit.

'Is this common practice for restaurants to require a minimum spend?' the user asked, referring to a note on the back of the menu that stated a minimum 'dine in' spending requirement of $20 per person and a $30 'no show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.

'This is calculated from the average spend per customer,' explained the restaurant.

The unusual statement sparked a fierce debate online, with opinions varying on whether such a minimum spending requirement and 'no-show' surcharge was justified.

In the restaurant's defence, some people agreed with the decision to charge for a minimum spend. 'It's not common, but if the place is small and people are coming just for a chat, then it makes sense,' commented one individual.

Another empathised with the restaurant's plight: 'For small, local businesses, especially with limited seating, it can be very frustrating to have groups of people come in and just order a couple of items and use the place as a hang-out spot and spend hours there.'

'Honestly, this seems reasonable. You don't want six people to show up and share a plate of hot chips,' added a third supporter of the policy.

On the other hand, a number of people found the requirement unfair and potentially off-putting.

'Not common, and I hope it doesn't become common. If they want to enforce it, that's fine, but I'm going to eat somewhere I won't feel like a burden for wanting to sit and enjoy an $18 pasta dish,' stated one disgruntled commenter.

'My only real gripe is if you can easily buy a meal and drink for under the minimum spend, essentially forcing you to buy something you don't want,' another user chimed in.

View attachment 23440

Opinions on the minimum spending requirement were divided among commenters. Credit: Pexels/Lisa Fotios.

Opinions were also sharply divided when it came to the $30 'no-show' fee. Some argued in favour of the surcharge, with one pointing out that not showing up is a 'massive loss for the company'.

Another person added, 'This type of thing exists to prevent people who book a table of eight and literally do not turn up and don't call in advance. Now you've got an empty table on a Saturday night that could have gone to someone else. People like this should pay.'

On the flip side, some remained unconvinced that the surcharge was justified and even suggested alternative solutions.

'Charging for no-shows is unconscionable. People could make a booking in the best of faith, and one or more members of their party could fall ill,' one concerned commenter said.

'Seems these folks have problems associated with reservations. Just switch to no bookings,' another user advised.

Key Takeaways

• An Aussie diner posted a picture of a Sydney restaurant's menu on social media, sparking a debate over its minimum spend and 'no-show' fee requirements.
• The restaurant requires a minimum 'dine-in' spending of $20 per person and imposes a $30 'no-show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.
• While some commenters thought the minimum spending requirement was reasonable to support small businesses with limited seating, others felt it was an unfair demand.
• Opinions on the $30 'no-show' fee were also divided, with some arguing it compensates for potential loss of income, while others found it unjustified and suggested alternative measures such as not accepting reservations.

As you can see, this Aussie restaurant's menu request certainly struck a chord in the online community. Members, we're super curious to know what you think about it. Is it fair for a restaurant to have minimum spending requirements and charge a 'no-show' fee? Or do you think these demands are a bit over the top?

We'd love to hear your opinions on this one! Let's get the conversation going in the comments below!

 

[bev_l]

I doubt that anyone would know about the 'conditions' until they were in the restaurant. I wonder, if on reading the 'conditions' on the back of the menu, diners decided to walk out. How would they enforce their 'conditions' then? I also think that if 8 people booked and only 7 people came, if the restaurant was determined to charge and extra $30 for the 'no-show', diners would have the right to demand another $30 worth of food. I would!

 

[Aussie all the Way]

I would get up and walk out if I had read that, like I did last week when I went to a Pub in Exeter Tasmania, ordered a bottle of red wine, we were going to have steak for lunch and they told us we would be charged corkage on the bottle of wine, after I got up off the floor I asked WHY and they said because they have to wash the glasses, BUT if I ordered a glass of wine no corkage, so do I assume they DON"T wash the glasses when you order a glass. I have NEVER EVER had to pay corkage at a PUB, I'm thinking this is against some sort of Law. Needless to say I told them we would NOT EVER BE EATING at this PUB.

 

[maxesmum]

I would walk straight out. Outrageous,asking for money on possibilities.

 

[Face-to-face]

Whoever said dining out was an easy decision clearly hasn't been to an Australian restaurant in a while!

Just as there are many aspects to consider when it comes to knowing which eatery is best for you, there are also some instances that demand—quite literally—that you pay closer attention to the menu itself.

As evidenced by this Sydney restaurant, whose menu has recently gone viral on social media, extra caution and double-checking are required when it comes to certain establishments.

Taking to the popular forum website Reddit, an Aussie diner shared a photo of the back of the menu, quickly attracting the attention of many users who found themselves divided over whether the restaurant's unusual request was fair or not.

View attachment 23441

An unconventional policy at a restaurant in Sydney has ignited a debate regarding its fairness. Credit: Reddit.

'Is this common practice for restaurants to require a minimum spend?' the user asked, referring to a note on the back of the menu that stated a minimum 'dine in' spending requirement of $20 per person and a $30 'no show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.

'This is calculated from the average spend per customer,' explained the restaurant.

The unusual statement sparked a fierce debate online, with opinions varying on whether such a minimum spending requirement and 'no-show' surcharge was justified.

In the restaurant's defence, some people agreed with the decision to charge for a minimum spend. 'It's not common, but if the place is small and people are coming just for a chat, then it makes sense,' commented one individual.

Another empathised with the restaurant's plight: 'For small, local businesses, especially with limited seating, it can be very frustrating to have groups of people come in and just order a couple of items and use the place as a hang-out spot and spend hours there.'

'Honestly, this seems reasonable. You don't want six people to show up and share a plate of hot chips,' added a third supporter of the policy.

On the other hand, a number of people found the requirement unfair and potentially off-putting.

'Not common, and I hope it doesn't become common. If they want to enforce it, that's fine, but I'm going to eat somewhere I won't feel like a burden for wanting to sit and enjoy an $18 pasta dish,' stated one disgruntled commenter.

'My only real gripe is if you can easily buy a meal and drink for under the minimum spend, essentially forcing you to buy something you don't want,' another user chimed in.

View attachment 23440

Opinions on the minimum spending requirement were divided among commenters. Credit: Pexels/Lisa Fotios.

Opinions were also sharply divided when it came to the $30 'no-show' fee. Some argued in favour of the surcharge, with one pointing out that not showing up is a 'massive loss for the company'.

Another person added, 'This type of thing exists to prevent people who book a table of eight and literally do not turn up and don't call in advance. Now you've got an empty table on a Saturday night that could have gone to someone else. People like this should pay.'

On the flip side, some remained unconvinced that the surcharge was justified and even suggested alternative solutions.

'Charging for no-shows is unconscionable. People could make a booking in the best of faith, and one or more members of their party could fall ill,' one concerned commenter said.

'Seems these folks have problems associated with reservations. Just switch to no bookings,' another user advised.

Key Takeaways

• An Aussie diner posted a picture of a Sydney restaurant's menu on social media, sparking a debate over its minimum spend and 'no-show' fee requirements.
• The restaurant requires a minimum 'dine-in' spending of $20 per person and imposes a $30 'no-show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.
• While some commenters thought the minimum spending requirement was reasonable to support small businesses with limited seating, others felt it was an unfair demand.
• Opinions on the $30 'no-show' fee were also divided, with some arguing it compensates for potential loss of income, while others found it unjustified and suggested alternative measures such as not accepting reservations.

As you can see, this Aussie restaurant's menu request certainly struck a chord in the online community. Members, we're super curious to know what you think about it. Is it fair for a restaurant to have minimum spending requirements and charge a 'no-show' fee? Or do you think these demands are a bit over the top?

We'd love to hear your opinions on this one! Let's get the conversation going in the comments below!

That's the owners right, after all it is his restaurant. I won't use it simple.

 

[Nana Zorak]

As I live in Brisbane, I would never be likely to go to this restaurant anyway. I also don't go out to eat even in Brisbane as I am too fussy an eater. Also, I can't afford to eat out.

 

[Welsh Dragon]

Whoever said dining out was an easy decision clearly hasn't been to an Australian restaurant in a while!

Just as there are many aspects to consider when it comes to knowing which eatery is best for you, there are also some instances that demand—quite literally—that you pay closer attention to the menu itself.

As evidenced by this Sydney restaurant, whose menu has recently gone viral on social media, extra caution and double-checking are required when it comes to certain establishments.

Taking to the popular forum website Reddit, an Aussie diner shared a photo of the back of the menu, quickly attracting the attention of many users who found themselves divided over whether the restaurant's unusual request was fair or not.

View attachment 23441

An unconventional policy at a restaurant in Sydney has ignited a debate regarding its fairness. Credit: Reddit.

'Is this common practice for restaurants to require a minimum spend?' the user asked, referring to a note on the back of the menu that stated a minimum 'dine in' spending requirement of $20 per person and a $30 'no show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.

'This is calculated from the average spend per customer,' explained the restaurant.

The unusual statement sparked a fierce debate online, with opinions varying on whether such a minimum spending requirement and 'no-show' surcharge was justified.

In the restaurant's defence, some people agreed with the decision to charge for a minimum spend. 'It's not common, but if the place is small and people are coming just for a chat, then it makes sense,' commented one individual.

Another empathised with the restaurant's plight: 'For small, local businesses, especially with limited seating, it can be very frustrating to have groups of people come in and just order a couple of items and use the place as a hang-out spot and spend hours there.'

'Honestly, this seems reasonable. You don't want six people to show up and share a plate of hot chips,' added a third supporter of the policy.

On the other hand, a number of people found the requirement unfair and potentially off-putting.

'Not common, and I hope it doesn't become common. If they want to enforce it, that's fine, but I'm going to eat somewhere I won't feel like a burden for wanting to sit and enjoy an $18 pasta dish,' stated one disgruntled commenter.

'My only real gripe is if you can easily buy a meal and drink for under the minimum spend, essentially forcing you to buy something you don't want,' another user chimed in.

View attachment 23440

Opinions on the minimum spending requirement were divided among commenters. Credit: Pexels/Lisa Fotios.

Opinions were also sharply divided when it came to the $30 'no-show' fee. Some argued in favour of the surcharge, with one pointing out that not showing up is a 'massive loss for the company'.

Another person added, 'This type of thing exists to prevent people who book a table of eight and literally do not turn up and don't call in advance. Now you've got an empty table on a Saturday night that could have gone to someone else. People like this should pay.'

On the flip side, some remained unconvinced that the surcharge was justified and even suggested alternative solutions.

'Charging for no-shows is unconscionable. People could make a booking in the best of faith, and one or more members of their party could fall ill,' one concerned commenter said.

'Seems these folks have problems associated with reservations. Just switch to no bookings,' another user advised.

Key Takeaways

• An Aussie diner posted a picture of a Sydney restaurant's menu on social media, sparking a debate over its minimum spend and 'no-show' fee requirements.
• The restaurant requires a minimum 'dine-in' spending of $20 per person and imposes a $30 'no-show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.
• While some commenters thought the minimum spending requirement was reasonable to support small businesses with limited seating, others felt it was an unfair demand.
• Opinions on the $30 'no-show' fee were also divided, with some arguing it compensates for potential loss of income, while others found it unjustified and suggested alternative measures such as not accepting reservations.

As you can see, this Aussie restaurant's menu request certainly struck a chord in the online community. Members, we're super curious to know what you think about it. Is it fair for a restaurant to have minimum spending requirements and charge a 'no-show' fee? Or do you think these demands are a bit over the top?

We'd love to hear your opinions on this one! Let's get the conversation going in the comments below!

And what is cakage????

 

[Mikeyboy2012]

Whoever said dining out was an easy decision clearly hasn't been to an Australian restaurant in a while!

Just as there are many aspects to consider when it comes to knowing which eatery is best for you, there are also some instances that demand—quite literally—that you pay closer attention to the menu itself.

As evidenced by this Sydney restaurant, whose menu has recently gone viral on social media, extra caution and double-checking are required when it comes to certain establishments.

Taking to the popular forum website Reddit, an Aussie diner shared a photo of the back of the menu, quickly attracting the attention of many users who found themselves divided over whether the restaurant's unusual request was fair or not.

View attachment 23441

An unconventional policy at a restaurant in Sydney has ignited a debate regarding its fairness. Credit: Reddit.

'Is this common practice for restaurants to require a minimum spend?' the user asked, referring to a note on the back of the menu that stated a minimum 'dine in' spending requirement of $20 per person and a $30 'no show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.

'This is calculated from the average spend per customer,' explained the restaurant.

The unusual statement sparked a fierce debate online, with opinions varying on whether such a minimum spending requirement and 'no-show' surcharge was justified.

In the restaurant's defence, some people agreed with the decision to charge for a minimum spend. 'It's not common, but if the place is small and people are coming just for a chat, then it makes sense,' commented one individual.

Another empathised with the restaurant's plight: 'For small, local businesses, especially with limited seating, it can be very frustrating to have groups of people come in and just order a couple of items and use the place as a hang-out spot and spend hours there.'

'Honestly, this seems reasonable. You don't want six people to show up and share a plate of hot chips,' added a third supporter of the policy.

On the other hand, a number of people found the requirement unfair and potentially off-putting.

'Not common, and I hope it doesn't become common. If they want to enforce it, that's fine, but I'm going to eat somewhere I won't feel like a burden for wanting to sit and enjoy an $18 pasta dish,' stated one disgruntled commenter.

'My only real gripe is if you can easily buy a meal and drink for under the minimum spend, essentially forcing you to buy something you don't want,' another user chimed in.

View attachment 23440

Opinions on the minimum spending requirement were divided among commenters. Credit: Pexels/Lisa Fotios.

Opinions were also sharply divided when it came to the $30 'no-show' fee. Some argued in favour of the surcharge, with one pointing out that not showing up is a 'massive loss for the company'.

Another person added, 'This type of thing exists to prevent people who book a table of eight and literally do not turn up and don't call in advance. Now you've got an empty table on a Saturday night that could have gone to someone else. People like this should pay.'

On the flip side, some remained unconvinced that the surcharge was justified and even suggested alternative solutions.

'Charging for no-shows is unconscionable. People could make a booking in the best of faith, and one or more members of their party could fall ill,' one concerned commenter said.

'Seems these folks have problems associated with reservations. Just switch to no bookings,' another user advised.

Key Takeaways

• An Aussie diner posted a picture of a Sydney restaurant's menu on social media, sparking a debate over its minimum spend and 'no-show' fee requirements.
• The restaurant requires a minimum 'dine-in' spending of $20 per person and imposes a $30 'no-show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.
• While some commenters thought the minimum spending requirement was reasonable to support small businesses with limited seating, others felt it was an unfair demand.
• Opinions on the $30 'no-show' fee were also divided, with some arguing it compensates for potential loss of income, while others found it unjustified and suggested alternative measures such as not accepting reservations.

As you can see, this Aussie restaurant's menu request certainly struck a chord in the online community. Members, we're super curious to know what you think about it. Is it fair for a restaurant to have minimum spending requirements and charge a 'no-show' fee? Or do you think these demands are a bit over the top?

We'd love to hear your opinions on this one! Let's get the conversation going in the comments below!

Business, like life in general, has its ups and downs. You win some and lose some. You have to be flexible enough to wear the negatives, like no-shows, whilst enjoying the positives, like more people arriving than planned. You can't charge people when their plans change and are beyond their control. That's business...and if you want to be in business and build your brand and reputation, you just have to wear it. Otherwise you will lose many more customers and your business will really suffer.

 

[Reet]

Whoever said dining out was an easy decision clearly hasn't been to an Australian restaurant in a while!

Just as there are many aspects to consider when it comes to knowing which eatery is best for you, there are also some instances that demand—quite literally—that you pay closer attention to the menu itself.

As evidenced by this Sydney restaurant, whose menu has recently gone viral on social media, extra caution and double-checking are required when it comes to certain establishments.

Taking to the popular forum website Reddit, an Aussie diner shared a photo of the back of the menu, quickly attracting the attention of many users who found themselves divided over whether the restaurant's unusual request was fair or not.

View attachment 23441

An unconventional policy at a restaurant in Sydney has ignited a debate regarding its fairness. Credit: Reddit.

'Is this common practice for restaurants to require a minimum spend?' the user asked, referring to a note on the back of the menu that stated a minimum 'dine in' spending requirement of $20 per person and a $30 'no show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.

'This is calculated from the average spend per customer,' explained the restaurant.

The unusual statement sparked a fierce debate online, with opinions varying on whether such a minimum spending requirement and 'no-show' surcharge was justified.

In the restaurant's defence, some people agreed with the decision to charge for a minimum spend. 'It's not common, but if the place is small and people are coming just for a chat, then it makes sense,' commented one individual.

Another empathised with the restaurant's plight: 'For small, local businesses, especially with limited seating, it can be very frustrating to have groups of people come in and just order a couple of items and use the place as a hang-out spot and spend hours there.'

'Honestly, this seems reasonable. You don't want six people to show up and share a plate of hot chips,' added a third supporter of the policy.

On the other hand, a number of people found the requirement unfair and potentially off-putting.

'Not common, and I hope it doesn't become common. If they want to enforce it, that's fine, but I'm going to eat somewhere I won't feel like a burden for wanting to sit and enjoy an $18 pasta dish,' stated one disgruntled commenter.

'My only real gripe is if you can easily buy a meal and drink for under the minimum spend, essentially forcing you to buy something you don't want,' another user chimed in.

View attachment 23440

Opinions on the minimum spending requirement were divided among commenters. Credit: Pexels/Lisa Fotios.

Opinions were also sharply divided when it came to the $30 'no-show' fee. Some argued in favour of the surcharge, with one pointing out that not showing up is a 'massive loss for the company'.

Another person added, 'This type of thing exists to prevent people who book a table of eight and literally do not turn up and don't call in advance. Now you've got an empty table on a Saturday night that could have gone to someone else. People like this should pay.'

On the flip side, some remained unconvinced that the surcharge was justified and even suggested alternative solutions.

'Charging for no-shows is unconscionable. People could make a booking in the best of faith, and one or more members of their party could fall ill,' one concerned commenter said.

'Seems these folks have problems associated with reservations. Just switch to no bookings,' another user advised.

Key Takeaways

• An Aussie diner posted a picture of a Sydney restaurant's menu on social media, sparking a debate over its minimum spend and 'no-show' fee requirements.
• The restaurant requires a minimum 'dine-in' spending of $20 per person and imposes a $30 'no-show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.
• While some commenters thought the minimum spending requirement was reasonable to support small businesses with limited seating, others felt it was an unfair demand.
• Opinions on the $30 'no-show' fee were also divided, with some arguing it compensates for potential loss of income, while others found it unjustified and suggested alternative measures such as not accepting reservations.

As you can see, this Aussie restaurant's menu request certainly struck a chord in the online community. Members, we're super curious to know what you think about it. Is it fair for a restaurant to have minimum spending requirements and charge a 'no-show' fee? Or do you think these demands are a bit over the top?

We'd love to hear your opinions on this one! Let's get the conversation going in the comments below!

I can remember many years ago when a dress code was imposed at certain restaurants. In particular my friends and I used to regularly dine at the Twin Towns RSL at Tweed Head/Coolangatta border where there was a dress c ode imposed. On one occasion a friend decided to challenge this code when he arrived without a tie. The manager lent him a tie after being very nasty to him and said that he should know by now that ties must be worn. He promptly went into the gents, removed his shirt and put on the tie before going back to the restaurant entrance. When asked by the manager what he thought he was doing he said "You didn't say I had to wear a shirt, only that I had to wear a tie".