|
|
|
Harvard prof fights for $4 on takeout!
- Thread starter rashidme
- Start date
Let's see if this works
Looks like the art of negotiation is alive and well.
Massachusetts has a false advertising statute that requires double or treble damages in cases in which wilful false advertising claims have been made. When a business is aware that their website is out of date and they make no immediate effort to correct it, that would likely qualify. It's called "Chapter 93A" and it provides for damages more than twice, but not more than 3 times the claimed damages. It also includes court costs, attorney fees, etc.. It allows for settlement at the actual amount of damages, but does not mandate it. A finding in court results in from 2X to 3X damages.
The rest of the 11 letters back and forth are here:
http://thechive.com/2014/12/11/anno...ing-overcharged-4-for-chinese-food-12-photos/
Looks like they fixed it the day after the first person complained.
Though they were aware of it for some time before that.
Information moves faster now.
http://www.boston.com/food-dining/r...e-and-worse/00mTW39jcyXb3VNHZoXEYN/story.html
http://www.benedelman.org/news/121014-1.html
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/12/11/sichuan-garden-overwhelmed-by-outpouring-support/
http://www.boston.com/food-dining/r...hinese-food/KfMaEhab6uUY1COCnTbrXP/story.html
http://www.boston.com/food-dining/r...e-and-worse/00mTW39jcyXb3VNHZoXEYN/story.html
http://www.benedelman.org/news/121014-1.html
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/12/11/sichuan-garden-overwhelmed-by-outpouring-support/
http://www.boston.com/food-dining/r...hinese-food/KfMaEhab6uUY1COCnTbrXP/story.html
Last edited:
The food guy is plenty slick himself. Is it possible just an honest mistake? Sloppy mom+ pop? Maybe. I don't often shop at Pizza Pizza but did go to one run by suicide bomber type guys once. Needed to pick up a whole whack of pies and drinks for a party. Ordered a bunch of combo packages. Long wait as expected. Once everything was assembled, a quick mental calculation (and I'm not very quick) revealed something amiss. A whispered consult with my sargent at arms was all it took for them to make it right. I can see how they might do that to the impaireds but it was still early days. Everybodys got an angle. That's my take away.
Just because the guy's on the ball, doesn't mean that he's deliberately trying to beat you. It's not like he palmed the change, spit in the food, or shorted the order. It's remotely possible that he has a triple Phd in Bartending, Sichaun Cuisine and Web Design, but not probable. I tend to accept his explanation at face value. Apparently, this isn't the first place that the Harvard Professor has had this type of run in with. He was apparently banned from one restaurant a while back.
Maybe he's not "deliberately" trying to beat people like the quick oil change place isn't deliberately trying to beat people with "unadvertised" shop supply charges (I mentioned it earlier in thread) the fact is they are playing fast and loose with other peoples money no matter how small the amount, approaching 8 percent. I wouldn't mind having that error in my favour every day all day.
If you know that there's a problem but don't fix it until there's a complaint, I'd call that pretty deliberate.
I believe that to be correct as well but unfortunately public sentiment is not with our hapless number cruncher and complainer du jour. That happens to be with the devil may care folksy foodie who fudged facts at other peoples expense. But hey, It's a mom and pop dontcha know?
What if you're ignorant that it's a problem until the complaint, rather than apathetic? He did try to make it right when it was pointed out to him. We all know that there are people going around taking advantage of this sort of thing, for profit. Look at the people who drive like crap, and then are first on the list to ask for a translator, even though they speak perfect English, when they get caught. This wasn't the first restaurant that he'd had the same issue with. He seems to get into particular situations, where he gets "ripped off", and then threatens legal action if he doesn't get a deep discount. It's possible that Harvard doesn't pay well. Idk. The internet is one of the few ways that the general public can have a say in these sorts of things. It sounds like he ordered over the phone and not the internet, then went to pick the stuff up. In that case, they always tally things for me on the phone.
Going out on a limb here but I bet if I go back thru the emails it will reveal he was already aware of the problem.
edit: yup email 3
Last edited:
Beat me to it. I'd already heard that, before the messages were released.
He said it hadn't been updated in a while.
That's not to say that he knew that not updating it was a problem.
Edit: I know, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The one thing that I've found with lawyers is that once they get involved,
the situation tends to get less amicable, rather than more.
There's two ways to look at the situation:
1) The Restaurant was ripping their customers off for a long time, and the guy came in and helped all of those poor people.
2) The guy tried to take advantage of the situation, and make it more costly to fight him, than to give him a discounted meal.
It sounds like a morally ambiguous situation.
Here's wishing that you never spill red wine on that guy's suit.
Last edited:
#3 - Both 1 and 2
The thing is that after the fact, nobody else seems to have come forward for the proffered refund. :d
Most in fact, seem to have thrown their support behind the restaurant.
Because it's been played as the poor, downtrodden restaurant owner who is just trying to make a living against the evil, privileged professor/lawyer. What if the media had gone for the evil bait & switch restaurateur vs. the crusading lawyer? There was a definite choice made in how to portray this incident. It's not just presented as facts, as a news story should be.
This story didn't write itself; it was written.
|
|
|
|
|