"Harvard professor" threatens to sue restaurant over $4


Recommended Posts

Harvard Business School professor threatens legal action against Chinese restaurant that overcharged him $4

 

Last week, Ben Edelman, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, ordered takeout from a local Chinese restaurant.

 

Upon his return, Edelman discovered the restaurant, Sichuan Garden in Brookline, Mass., had overcharged him a total of $4 on his $53.35 order of shredded chicken with spicy garlic sauce, saut?ed prawns with roasted chili and peanut, stir-fried chicken with spicy capsicum and braised fish filets and Napa cabbage with roasted chili.

4ee706b0-80ca-11e4-a0d6-e143d364a3e9_yel

Edeman, left, and one of the menu items he ordered. (Harvard.edu/Sichuan Garden)

 

Now most people in this situation might call the restaurant to point out the error, get a refund or future credit for takeout, or just swallow the $4. But Edelman, who received a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and a law degree from Harvard Law School, fired off a series of emails to the restaurant, threatening legal action and vowing to report the incident to the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Division.

Ran Duan, who helps his parents run the family-owned restaurant, explained the prices on their website were outdated. "I apologize for the confusing [sic]," Duan wrote. "Our websites prices has been out of date for quite some time. I will male sure to update it, if you would like I can email you an updated menu."

 

"Thanks for the reply and for explaining what went wrong," Edelman, who admitted he "enjoyed the food," responded. "Under Massachusetts law, it turns out to be a serious violation to advertise one price and charge a different price. I urge you to cease this practice immediately. If you don't know how to update your web site, you could remove the web site altogether until you are able to correct the error."

Edelman continued: In the interim, I suggest that Sichuan Garden refund me three times the amount of the overcharge. The tripling reflects the approach provided under the Massachusetts consumer protection statute, MGL 93a, wherein consumers broadly receive triple damages for certain intentional violations. Please refund the $12 to my credit card. Or you could mail a check for $12 to my home: Ben Edelman [ADDRESS REDACTED] 

When Duan offered to refund Edelman the original overcharge, Edelman went into lawyerly overdrive:

It strikes me that merely providing a refund to a single customer would be an exceptionally light sanction for the violation that has occurred. To wit,, your restaurant overcharged all customers who viewed the web site and placed a telephone order ? the standard and typical way to order takeout. You did so knowingly, knowing your web site was out of date and that consumers would see it and rely on it. You allowed the problem to continue, in your words, "for quite some time." You don't seem to recognize that this is a legal matter and calls for a more thoughtful and far-reaching resolution. Nor do you recognize the principle, well established in applicable laws, that when a business intentionally overcharges a customer, the business should suffer a penalty larger than the amount of the overcharge ? a principle exactly intended to punish and deter violations. I have already referred this matter to applicable authorities in order to attempt to compel your restaurant to identify all consumers affected and to provide refunds to all of them, or in any event to assure that an appropriate sanction is applied as provided by law.

 

 

Duan replied that he would wait to be contacted by those "applicable authorities," and that restuarant had updated its website as Edelman continued his barrage.

 

"Brookline consumer protection authorities told me that they couldn't assist because the restaurant had already ceased the false statements I flagged," Edelman wrote in an email to Yahoo News. "I thought they might want to arrange refunds to affected consumers, but they indicated that this is not their priority."

 

He told Boston.com he plans to take a few days before before deciding whether to pursue any further legal action. ?It certainly seems like a situation that could call for legal redress," Edelman said. "But this is a small business in the town where I reside.?

 

Wednesday afternoon, Edelman issued an apology on his website.

 

"Having reflected on my interaction with Ran, including what I said and how I said it, it?s clear that I was very much out of line," he wrote. "I aspire to act with great respect and humility in dealing with others, no matter what the situation. Clearly I failed to do so. I am sorry, and I intend to do better in the future."

 

Meanwhile, the entire, three-day exchange has understandably gone viral.

http://news.yahoo.com/harvard-professor-chinese-takeout-sichuan-garden-email-viral-161139427.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's the principle of the whole thing.  But he has a point about advertising false prices.

Sure, but they did update their prices and 4 dollars? My goodness the cost for the government or other parties involved if he actually did sue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edelman, who admitted he "enjoyed the food

 

That should be the end of it. At the end of the day, all he's going to get is $4 back and now a group of pitch-fork bearing eActivists against him. Way to ruin your credibility as a 'just' law practitioner. This article straight ###### me off. Thanks :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bwa hahahahahaha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's the principle of the whole thing.  But he has a point about advertising false prices.

 

Yea, if it was advertised wrong on purpose. Otherwise, the owner should have been on it and changed the advertised prices, but its petty to threaten a lawsuit over it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

very very small.

lol

 

another note, I somehow selectively read the article topic incorrectly.

"Last week, Ben Edelman, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, ordered takeout from a local Chinese restaurant."

 

I had to do a couple take and realize it's a proper word and not a vulgar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's the principle of the whole thing.  But he has a point about advertising false prices.

 

Spot on. As petty as it may seem, you can't just advertise prices as one thing, and charge another.

 

Of course in this case, pointing this out and making sure they updated would probably suffice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he took this to court here the Judge would be as likely to throw it out for wasting the courts time as anything else. I mean seriously. Get over yourself.. It was a minor error, they explained why, they offered to refund you the difference.. anything else is just being an ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a douche. They acknowledged the problem and subsequently rectified it and offered to honour the original pricing. He has nothin further to go on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a douche. They acknowledged the problem and subsequently rectified it and offered to honour the original pricing. He has nothin further to go on

 

This is the US after all, where the public almost have this blood lust of making other people suffer in pain, agony or embarrassment so that they can feel better about themselves. A culture that takes delight in the pain they inflict on others is why the country is in the state that it is in.

 

Spot on. As petty as it may seem, you can't just advertise prices as one thing, and charge another.

 

Of course in this case, pointing this out and making sure they updated would probably suffice.

 

No it isn't 'spot on' - it is a load of crap that you and Tha Bloo Monkee turning this into; was there a malicious attempt on the restaurants part to deceive the customer? no, it was an honest mistake. Jesus H Christ, learn the consumer protection legislation because there is a SPECIFIC part of the legislation that covers honest mistakes and how the legislation handles it. 'Advertising false prices' is a claim that there is something malicious about the pricing - that it was deliberately mispriced to draw customers in - the onus is on YOU to prove that there was malicious intent behind it. Heard of this concept called 'innocent until proven guilty'? the same applies to this scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the US after all, where the public almost have this blood lust of making other people suffer in pain, agony or embarrassment so that they can feel better about themselves. A culture that takes delight in the pain they inflict on others is why the country is in the state that it is in.

No it isn't 'spot on' - it is a load of crap that you and Tha Bloo Monkee turning this into; was there a malicious attempt on the restaurants part to deceive the customer? no, it was an honest mistake. Jesus H Christ, learn the consumer protection legislation because there is a SPECIFIC part of the legislation that covers honest mistakes and how the legislation handles it. 'Advertising false prices' is a claim that there is something malicious about the pricing - that it was deliberately mispriced to draw customers in - the onus is on YOU to prove that there was malicious intent behind it. Heard of this concept called 'innocent until proven guilty'? the same applies to this scenario.

You need to calm down and reply like an adult when you talk to me.

A civil discussion on the topic us what I came here for, not a childish rant.

Remember this in future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole culture of suing to get what you want is totally out of control, i'm pretty sure if he'd have contested the bill at the time it was presented then the restaurant would have checked it and made corrections. Instead this guy just shows the world what a prick he really is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't go over the three-day e-mail exchange, but the concern that the restaurant in case may have overcharged takeout customers "for quite some time" is a valid one.

 

I suppose the manner in which this person went about it is also questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it isn't 'spot on' - it is a load of crap that you and Tha Bloo Monkee turning this into; was there a malicious attempt on the restaurants part to deceive the customer? no, it was an honest mistake. Jesus H Christ, learn the consumer protection legislation because there is a SPECIFIC part of the legislation that covers honest mistakes and how the legislation handles it. 'Advertising false prices' is a claim that there is something malicious about the pricing - that it was deliberately mispriced to draw customers in - the onus is on YOU to prove that there was malicious intent behind it. Heard of this concept called 'innocent until proven guilty'? the same applies to this scenario.

 

Around here at least if you see a price, then that's the price and that's what you pay (taxes excluded).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.