[braythwayt]

“I ordered the tuna salad every time I ate at the restaurant. About half of the time, the manager informed me that they were out of tuna, and had to send a truck to fetch more.

After a while of this, they banned me from the restaurant for ordering the tuna salad.”

[muststopmyths]

Actually, that analogy would only make sense if "you" refused to order anything but tuna salad and expected them to send the truck out without fail when they were out. And they had to comply with your request for some reason.

In that case, yeah, they should ban "you".

[braythwayt]

The fellow is parking the car in his own garage, and ZipCar claims to be in the car business, and it is normal to park cars in garages.

I say they have tuna salad on the menu, but they apparently can't always serve it to everyone.

Your suggestion that he order something else to eat is like telling a ZipCar customer to move to a different condominium or whatever.

They don't "have" to do anything, provided they aren't discriminating against him on the basis of a prohibited factor like race or gender. Just as a restaurant doesn't have to serve you (subject to the same caveat).

But the important thing here to note is that the hypothetical restaurant has organized their business in such a way that some customers cannot get what they claim to serve, just as ZipCar has organized their business such that some customers cannot enjoy the service they claim to offer.

They don't have to do anything, but I object to blaming the customer for their choice to run their business in such a way that a very ordinary thing that some customers can do, others cannot.

[mcguire]

A better analogy would be that ZipCar has a known failure mode that will leave you stranded. And they don't feel the urge to fix it.