In my opinion, there is not much problem with the "limited time" of Diandude, but it should be based on the full supply of dishes ordered by customers. Obviously, when the netizen learned that the waiter "arrived at dinner time", his order had not been served yet. In this case, the behavior of restaurant and store waiters is obviously wrong. If a restaurant stipulates the time to finish the meal within two hours, but you can't finish the meal within two hours, what qualifications do you have to ask consumers to finish the meal?

In fact, many restaurants among online celebrities have begun to implement "limited time dining", and these restaurants have one thing in common, that is, they often have to wait in line for more than an hour. Therefore, the implementation of "limited time dining" is also a helpless move of these restaurants. However, it must be pointed out that the "limited time diet" in most restaurants is only a warm reminder, not a mandatory requirement. Of course, this incident also caused a heated discussion among netizens. The focus of everyone's attention is "Is it reasonable to order meals in restaurants?" The comments of netizens are also polarized.

Netizens in favor of "limited time dining" said that "limited time dining" can alleviate the queuing phenomenon in restaurants and reduce the waiting time of consumers to some extent. Imagine that if a consumer sits down and talks for a long time after a meal, it will definitely prolong the time for consumers to queue up outside the store. Netizens who oppose "limited time eating" said that eating should be fun. It's like "Diandude", a restaurant dealing in Cantonese cuisine. Because it is a Guangdong tea restaurant, it naturally has an indissoluble bond with Guangdong morning tea. Speaking of Guangdong morning tea, besides delicious refreshments, there is also a leisurely environment. Therefore, if "limited meals", consumers will not be able to experience truly "leisurely" Cantonese snacks. In addition, although "limited time dining" is only a warm reminder, it is not mandatory, but I believe many consumers know that "limited time dining" in restaurants often can't rest assured to enjoy food, because it often depends on whether the time is up.

The above two views, one is the position of consumers, and the other is the position of catering consumers. In fact, no one is right or wrong. Some netizens think that "time-limited diet" belongs to the bullying clause and infringes on the rights and interests of consumers. In fact, the law does not clearly stipulate whether "time-limited diet" violates consumers' rights and interests. Some lawyers said that consumers' choice of "limited-time restaurants" is considered "defective" in the Consumer Protection Law, and these defects do not violate the mandatory provisions of the law. "In other words, if a consumer chooses a restaurant that previously claimed to have a" time limit ",it means that the consumer has clearly known that the restaurant has a" time limit "and agreed to do so, and then the catering industry is agreed by both parties in the contract law, and the negotiation is successful.