• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Harvard Business School professor reacts to $4 restaurant overcharge

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Who do you side with?

  • Restaurant owner is a thief

  • Professor is a jerk and a bully

Results are only viewable after voting.
Okay I retract what I said earlier on account of this man's fixation with throwing legalese at Asian restaurants. I am not sure his initial complaint is wrong but he epitomizes the concept of a first world problem. Too much time spent on this stuff.
 
I'm sure pricing issues like this happen all the time, some by negligence & some on purpose. I've worked in the restaurant business and a lot of people are just barely scraping by, so if they can get a few bucks out of me because I didn't bother to check my own receipt, then more power to them. Heck, consider it a tip because I was too lazy to verify the purchase, haha.

Issue #1 is that the website price didn't match the actual price, which is more or less a given for most mom & pop shops. Most of the places I eat at don't even have matching menus online.

Issue #2 is that the customer took delivery of his food without checking the price. That's like driving away from McDonalds without checking that the bag's contents are correct - buyer beware.

Issue #3 is that the customer decided to be a jerk about it. Under the letter of the law, the restaurant should have fixed their website & refunded him the overage amount. Under the exact letter of the law, it sounds like they should have refunded him triple the amount. I've never heard of anyone actually doing this, and it sounded like the restaurant owner would have been happy to refund him the actual overage.

Then it blew up into a social media & news issue because the customer decided to use his legal power to press the issue. I can see that if they ripped you off for a lot of money, but for a few dollars? C'mon. Now the customer looks like an idiot in front of the world & will probably have his take-out food spit in for the rest of his life. All for $4.

You can be a stickler, and life will be hard for you, or you can learn to just go with the flow and let little issues like this go. I work with a couple guys like this & everything is a hassle for them. It's not about humanity, it's about adhering to the system. Those guys make good quality control inspectors tho! :awe:
 
Kaido said:
Under the exact letter of the law, it sounds like they should have refunded him triple the amount. I've never heard of anyone actually doing this, and it sounded like the restaurant owner would have been happy to refund him the actual overage.
Click to expand...

Other lawyers have pointed out that the Harvard guy was wrong about the law in question:

But as Georgetown University law professor Adam Levitin wrote last night, Edelman is probably invoking the principle incorrectly. Conveniently, Levitin teaches the statute that Edelman cites, MGL 93a, in one of his classes. First, he notes that the law doesn't actually require treble damages. Instead, a judge can choose to award them in cases where the defendant committed a "willful or knowing violation" or "if the defendant refused in bad faith to settle." (Also, there's technically a $25 minimum for any and all damages.) The thing is, Sichuan Garden very quickly offered to refund Edelman what he'd been overcharged. According to Levitin, that should have put them in the clear
Click to expand...
 
madoka said:
Other lawyers have pointed out that the Harvard guy was wrong about the law in question:
Click to expand...

Mr. Edelman's e-mails are in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in misrepresenting the law (intentional or otherwise) and could constitute as extortion attempts. Asking for half-price off of his entire meal? WTF?

More importantly this corporate attorney clearly was outmaneuvered by the lowly small business owner at his own game. Then again, being an (associate) Harvard professor doesn't hold much weight post-2008. lol?

BTW, Boston.com first reported that Ran Duan provided them an e-mail from Mr. Edelman containing a racist slur. However, they have since retracted the story after Mr. Edelman denied the claims. Looks fairly legit to me, including the run-on dim-witted excuse.

websherfif1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Humpy said:
I have little patience for careless, nickle-dick businesses that will hide behind BS like "mom & pop" and "oh, our website is out of date". Fuck you.

The restaurant managers first reply of offering a partial refund earned him what followed. He's a dumbass. The first response should have been "your card has been refunded the $4 (or the full amount), sorry for the inconvenience, hope you enjoyed your meal, see you next time".

The restaurant's shortsightedness is thoroughly eclipsed by the massive douchebaggery of Ben Edelman though. All I can conclude is that, as usual, the world is chock full of fucktards.
Click to expand...

In Brooklyn, most businesses are "mom & pop" and you see this sort of thing all the time. It isn't always an accident.
 
Ran Duan: I’m Ready to Forgive and Move On
http://www.boston.com/food-dining/f...delman-move/qV70qbXhUP7155n3hvx6aJ/story.html

Ran Duan is ready to move on.

The Woburn restaurant owner involved in a highly publicized dispute with Harvard Business school associate professor Ben Edelman spoke to Boston.com about the situation and expressed a desire to put the ordeal behind him.

“I forgive people...I mean...I tried to do everything and he obviously has valid points that he’s right. I’m not here to argue who’s right and who’s wrong I just want to get it resolved,” Duan told Boston.com. “I’m from a Chinese background and chain of command, respect your elders, everything’s been ingrained in me since I was a little boy.”

Duan says he has received hundreds of emails since the dispute was first reported.

“A majority of the emails were from people from Harvard that expressed their apologies on behalf of the situation. They don’t owe me an apology. I actually own them an apology because they are getting a bad rap by associating with this whole ordeal.”

Duan’s parents founded Sichuan Garden, which has locations in Woburn and Brookline Village, in the early 1990s.

Duan said he’s sending Edelman a check in hopes of resolving the dispute once and for all.

“I’m actually going to honor him full price back just out of the goodness of my heart. I will be donating money to the Greater Boston Food Bank, as well, which I hope (Edelman) takes that check and donates it as well.”

“Hopefully we can learn something from this and just move on as a community,” Duan said.
Click to expand...
 
Rakehellion said:
In Brooklyn, most businesses are "mom & pop" and you see this sort of thing all the time. It isn't always an accident.
Click to expand...

Yes, and seeing the guy is a professor of such economic quagmires, he thought he was paying society a service. (no sarcasm)
 
I'm going to side with the restaurant on the superdouchebaggery of the professor, but it does seem like the restaurant was perfectly comfortable advertising one price on the web and charging a different(higher) price.

As they were, the difference was small enough that I doubt the majority of the customers would care, but it does add up to like 7% of the price and no business minds getting 7% more than what the customer thought he was going to pay.
 
Regs said:
Yes, and seeing the guy is a professor of such economic quagmires, he thought he was paying society a service. (no sarcasm)
Click to expand...

If this guy had hassled Comcast about overcharging $4, instead of a kindhearted mom and pop business, society would have lined up to blow him. 🙂
 
Humpy said:
If this guy had hassled Comcast about overcharging $4, instead of a kindhearted mom and pop business, society would have lined up to blow him. 🙂
Click to expand...

Yes, but he doesn't have the balls to go after Comcast. He's a pathetic bully who picks easy targets hoping they don't have the knowledge or resources to defend themselves.
 
HamburgerBoy said:
Aside from the 3x damages/penalty charge up-front which made me assume perpetuation of a different negative stereotype, I don't see what's wrong with what the professor did. He started off pretty mildly and managed to get them to change their outdated menu.
Click to expand...

THIS.

I know everyone here is saying "OH GOD WHAT A POMPOUS ASS TOOL PROFESSOR! HES RICH! Can't he just pony up an extra $4 and not cry about it?!"

Yes. Yes he can. But it's not always about that. Do you know how many people order to-go based on online menus? A lot of people today. A lot more than previously. So he is correct in his assumption that in this error, a LOT of people are getting screwed. Multiply those $4 differences times LOTS of customers daily, and it DOES make a difference. So he has a VERY valid point.

Now, do I agree with all this blabbering bullshit legal action he is doing? Fuck no. I would just be courteous and inform the restaurant owner of the laws and that his incorrect online menu violates them. Boom. Have a nice day. These replies and threats are ridiculous. Your time obviously isn't of value to cry over spilled milk.

edit: If anything, the professor give the restaurant owner good publicity. So in the end, restaurant is probably going to be the winner regardless.
 
Last edited:
s0me0nesmind1 said:
THIS.

I know everyone here is saying "OH GOD WHAT A POMPOUS ASS TOOL PROFESSOR! HES RICH! Can't he just pony up an extra $4 and not cry about it?!"

Yes. Yes he can. But it's not always about that. Do you know how many people order to-go based on online menus? A lot of people today. A lot more than previously. So he is correct in his assumption that in this error, a LOT of people are getting screwed. Multiply those $4 differences times LOTS of customers daily, and it DOES make a difference. So he has a VERY valid point.

Now, do I agree with all this blabbering bullshit legal action he is doing? Fuck no. I would just be courteous and inform the restaurant owner of the laws and that his incorrect online menu violates them. Boom. Have a nice day. These replies and threats are ridiculous. Your time obviously isn't of value to cry over spilled milk.
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing everyone's point. We all understand that $4 adds up and that the restaurant was technically doing the wrong thing. I don't see anyone saying otherwise. The main point is that the guy is a massive asshole who made the situation far worse by demanding (extorting?) money over something stupid. He could have made sure the website was updated without 99% of the bullshit he spewed.
 
MrDudeMan said:
You seem to be missing everyone's point. We all understand that $4 adds up and that the restaurant was technically doing the wrong thing. I don't see anyone saying otherwise. The main point is that the guy is a massive asshole who made the situation far worse by demanding (extorting?) money over something stupid. He could have made sure the website was updated without 99% of the bullshit he spewed.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

Here's a guy who charges $800 per hour for his services spending that much time and effort to try to get $8 more than he deserved for his Chinese food. As a result, he likely cost himself any chance of getting tenure. That makes him an idiot.
 
madoka said:
Pretty much this.

Here's a guy who charges $800 per hour for his services spending that much time and effort to try to get $8 more than he deserved for his Chinese food. As a result, he likely cost himself any chance of getting tenure. That makes him an idiot.
Click to expand...

MrDudeMan said:
You seem to be missing everyone's point. We all understand that $4 adds up and that the restaurant was technically doing the wrong thing. I don't see anyone saying otherwise. The main point is that the guy is a massive asshole who made the situation far worse by demanding (extorting?) money over something stupid. He could have made sure the website was updated without 99% of the bullshit he spewed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for rephrasing EXACTLY what I said.

I said the man is a complete dumb fuck for wasting his time and effort to email a restaurant owner over a mistake. I didn't miss anyone's point, but my counter point was simply that his income shouldn't be a factor in judgment on if he is a gentlemen and a scholar or a scumbag asshole.

You, obviously, are one of those toolbag's that let other peoples income cloud your judgement. It's quite apparent that the jealousy of other peoples success is prevalent in your daily thought process. Congratulations, you're liberal!
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Thanks for rephrasing EXACTLY what I said.

I said the man is a complete dumb fuck for wasting his time and effort to email a restaurant owner over a mistake. I didn't miss anyone's point, but my counter point was simply that his income shouldn't be a factor in judgment on if he is a gentlemen and a scholar or a scumbag asshole.

You, obviously, are one of those toolbag's that let other peoples income cloud your judgement. It's quite apparent that the jealousy of other peoples success is prevalent in your daily thought process. Congratulations, you're liberal!
Click to expand...

The thing is, he pointed out that you're downplaying the crucial aspect. The reason this turned into what it did is specifically because the professor went from handling it fine to being a ridiculous asshole even after he had accomplished the part you seem to be taking issue with (the price disparity between what is charged and what the website states).

So no, he didn't paraphrase EXACTLY what you said. You downplayed the most significant aspect. You just say (and I'm paraphrasing here) "yeah his legal threats were bad and you didn't agree with them". They weren't just bad, they're the entire fucking point of why this guy got railroaded for being the monumental jackass he is.

It's quite apparent that you're letting your raging hardon for defending some rich dickhead because he's rich and not understanding the entire point is that the issue is him being a dickhead cloud your ability to actually comprehend the situation. Congratulations, you not only show that you have the logic ability of the dickhead professor but you're also doing exactly what you're chastising someone else for doing (letting something unrelated cloud your judgement, in your case it's your political bias).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top