So basically the meal is the act of sitting down with him. It doesn't matter what you get. As long as he's sitting in that restaurant, it's a meal.justincredible;1580420 wrote: But I disagree with gut's original post. The coupon doesn't cut it.
However, in this case if thevoice wanted a meal then he should have been more specific in the language of the bet. Any decent lawyer would argue the coupon fully satisfies the terms of the bet.
You're basically saying if they go to the bar, and thevoice gets his meal, that the other guy can't pay for it with a coupon.