In article . com>,
"NYC XYZ" > wrote:

> SMS wrote:
> > The minimum order per person may be a better solution than the sharing
> > charge, in areas where under-ordering is a problem.

> Per person may be carrying things too far...surely you don't really
> mean that? Sales are calculated by the table, aren't they -- you don't
> seat strangers at the same table, after all. So if sales are by the
> table, then the tab per table is what counts, regardless of which
> individuals at the table consumes what amount.

Regardless of the logic or intention of it, yes, many restaurants have a
per-person minimum order. However, it's typically quite low &
reasonable, as to almost be a non-factor (i.e., it's typically less than
half the price of a reasonable meal, so you could order a burger, your
friend nothing, and still meet the minimum order.)

And, like sharing fee, it's often not really enforced.

I think that the min-per-order thing might be in areas with a large
"starving student" population -- or perhaps high homelessness -- and the
gist of it seems to be "we don't want half a dozen of you kids sitting
around all afternoon while one of your orders a soda with free refills
and you all drink off of it" kind of thing.

Darn those kids!

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.