Was an All-You-Can-Eat Fish Fry Right to Cut This Guy Off?

News 2012/05/17 13:00:00
Add Photos & Videos
All Bill Wisth wanted was a couple of pieces of fried fish. Is that so much to ask? OK, so it was more like... over a dozen pieces. But hey, the sign said "all-you-can-eat"! The 6 foot 6 inch, 350 pound customer is accusing Chuck's Place in Thiensville, Wisconsin, of false advertising after a waitress refused to bring him a 13th piece of fish. (Although, they reportedly gave him eight more pieces to-go.)

Wisth told a local news station, "We asked for more fish and they refused to give us any more fish. I think that people have to stand up for consumers." And stand up he did. He called the police, then started picketing the restaurant. But apparently Wisth has been a problem in the past. A waitress there says they've dealt with him for years, and that he still hasn't paid off his tab. In their defense, Wisth added, "They do have like some of the best pizza in town." Do you think the all-you-can-eat restaurant was right to refuse this guy more fish?

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Just Jenn for Now 2012/05/17 16:41:17 (edited)
    Just Jenn for Now
    ... It's called ALL YOU CAN EAT.

    Not all we THINK you SHOULD eat

    If you're going to put a limit, then don't advertise your special as "All you can eat", or at least put finer print that says the limit.

    If the restaurant can't afford the hungriest of patrons, then by all means, just CANCEL the "all you can eat" special.

    EDIT: Since some are under the impression I didn't read the article; yes, I did. No, I'm not defending this guy. HOWEVER, the restaurant IS at fault for not practicing PROPER refusal of service.

    Instead of refusing him from the get-go - which they had EVERY RIGHT TO DO since he'd been causing problems before - they didn't, welcomes him in, and LET him order the ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT.

    With that, since he was welcomed and allowed to order what he wanted, they HAVE to see that service through - all he CAN eat, or rather all he wanted to.

    Case in point: The restaurant did NOT practice their right to refusal PROPERLY, and thus are unfortunately the ones at fault here. Lesson learned, I should hope.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • skroehr 2012/05/17 15:40:44 (edited)
    There's no way you should cut someone off when you advertise "all you can eat". However, the articles says they gave him more to go. That was not only unecessary, but ruins the whole idea of all you can eat buffets and such, and makes the customer a theif. I was always taught in an all you can eat situation, two rules. 1. Take all you want, but eat all you take. 2. Taking any food with you out of the restaurant under an all you can eat situation is theft. You can eat us much as you want while you're there, and have paid, and if you're not taking food away.
  • none 2012/05/17 15:40:08
  • SK-pro impeachment 2012/05/17 15:39:25
    SK-pro impeachment
    And if the guy suddenly has a heart attack in the restaurant, he'd probably try to sue them. i think they have a right to cut him off to cover their butts.
    what next? drunks doing the same as he did because the bartenders cut them off?? Let's have some common sense folks.
  • CTF SK-pro ... 2012/05/17 16:32:55
    That's a very good point. Bartenders have the right to cut anyone off at any time. Even with paying customers.
  • cmdrbnd007 2012/05/17 15:39:14
    No it wasn't right to cut him off. My question is why in the world, if he owed them money, did they serve him to begin with?
  • Christopher Kirchen 2012/05/17 15:37:30
    Christopher Kirchen
    They said all you can eat; if they couldn't accommodate big eaters they shouldn't have advertised that.
  • shawn 2012/05/17 15:37:16
    they shouldn't have served him to begin with if he owed them money. If they agreed to serve him an all you can eat dinner, Then they should have just kept the plates coming.. But if they knew this guy, knew he hadn't paid down his tab, they should have asked him to pay up or leave before serving him.
  • kraftymomma1979 2012/05/17 15:37:03
    Some people take advantage of a good thing and ruin it for the rest of us. It's like he hadn't eaten in three days and scrounged up the money for a buffet as I've known some down-and-out people to do. Stand up for consumers? My big old butt! He's looking for a payout. Maybe he can spill some hot coffee on his legs or claim that the iced tea gave him a kidney stone.
  • Andy 2012/05/17 15:36:00
    While it may not be in his best interest... ALL YOU CAN EAT, means just that...ALL YOU CAN EAT!! This restaurant was wrong!!
  • UndeadZander 2012/05/17 15:34:28
    Sign says All You Can Eat, i mean ya that is alot but still All You Can Eat, the man wanted his dang fish!
  • lmnlme1... UndeadZ... 2012/05/17 16:11:55
    Yes, but he would have to be able to pay for it, and he hasn't been able to before.
  • acman 2012/05/17 15:17:19
    No they should not cut him off ALL YOU CAN EAT ...MEANS ALL YOU CAN EAT..
    ...He was not finished eating!
  • lmnlme1... acman 2012/05/17 16:12:40
    He wasn't finished paying, either. They cut him off so that they would not lose any more money than they already had.
  • CTF lmnlme1... 2012/05/17 16:35:30
    Plus, they had already given him 8 pieces to go..... If he was truly that hungry, why didn't he eat one of those 8 pieces as his 13th?
  • lmnlme1... CTF 2012/05/17 16:36:15
    Exactly. It seems to me that a guy just wanted some free food and a lot of attention.
  • CTF lmnlme1... 2012/05/17 16:57:25
    Yup..... Eat those 8 pieces, pay your tab.... And then we'll talk about you getting more

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/10 17:48:41

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals