"Dog3" wrote:
> I wrote:
> > But if it's a gratuity, it's not a theft of services.
> >
> > The customers are being robbed, not the business.
>
> Actually it is considered theft of services it is on the menu. If worded
> differently it would certainly be considered theft of services. IMO it's a
> real grey area but it does exist.

All of this plays on ignorance and laziness. This is up there with "buy 6,
get one free" and "only $699 (after rebate)."

There are laws against compelling individuals to pay excessive and
unnecessary charges, but most of them wont help us if we blithely agree to
pay.

This issue isn't as cut and dried as loss leaders and bait and switch. At
its heart, though, it's still a dawdle.

Should a business owner be allowed to wheedle some oxymoron into standard
operating procedure and then legitimize it in court by whining "contract"? I
hope that some judge some where will have the stones to call it an ambiguous
statement, and make the whole thing invalid.

If it's an additional service charge, then call it an additional service
charge. But if it's called an additional service charge, make damn sure some
service above and beyond the standard was actually provided. Otherwise, it's
just a gouge.