Harvard prof fights for $4 on takeout! | Page 4 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Harvard prof fights for $4 on takeout!

Rob MacLennan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Crusading lawyers generally act within the constricts of the legal system; investigations into past patterns of dishonesty, class action suits, press conferences, working with the relevant authorities and governing bodies, and legislators to affect change. This guy did none of that. He acted alone, on his own behalf, demanding a settlement which, although the law allows for, he is not entitled to without a judgement. He spent an amount of time that would have cost a client hundreds if not thousands of dollars on a matter and amount that would in all likelihood been laughed out of court, after a thorough telling off by the judge. Assuming it even got that far and wasn't rejected before it even got to court.
I don't think public opinion has anything to do with his education or position. It has to do with his overall sense of self-importance, the ludicrous effort, the threats, the entitlement, and fact the restaurant turned it around on him. Where his profession and position do come into play is that he more than most should have known better.
 
CanadianBiker said:
Crusading lawyers generally act within the constricts of the legal system; investigations into past patterns of dishonesty, class action suits, press conferences, working with the relevant authorities and governing bodies, and legislators to affect change. This guy did none of that. He acted alone, on his own behalf, demanding a settlement which, although the law allows for, he is not entitled to without a judgement. He spent an amount of time that would have cost a client hundreds if not thousands of dollars on a matter and amount that would in all likelihood been laughed out of court, after a thorough telling off by the judge. Assuming it even got that far and wasn't rejected before it even got to court.
I don't think public opinion has anything to do with his education or position. It has to do with his overall sense of self-importance, the ludicrous effort, the threats, the entitlement, and fact the restaurant turned it around on him. Where his profession and position do come into play is that he more than most should have known better.
Click to expand...

You're missing my point. How this story is viewed is largely because the slant media put on it. You're also minimizing the current trend of demonizing "intellectual elitists" that is very pronounced in the United States and becoming more so in Canada.
 
CanadianBiker said:
Crusading lawyers generally act within the constricts of the legal system; investigations into past patterns of dishonesty, class action suits, press conferences, working with the relevant authorities and governing bodies, and legislators to affect change. This guy did none of that. He acted alone, on his own behalf, demanding a settlement which, although the law allows for, he is not entitled to without a judgement. He spent an amount of time that would have cost a client hundreds if not thousands of dollars on a matter and amount that would in all likelihood been laughed out of court, after a thorough telling off by the judge. Assuming it even got that far and wasn't rejected before it even got to court.
I don't think public opinion has anything to do with his education or position. It has to do with his overall sense of self-importance, the ludicrous effort, the threats, the entitlement, and fact the restaurant turned it around on him. Where his profession and position do come into play is that he more than most should have known better.
Click to expand...

Uno momento por favor... the Harvard professor original email (or what seems to be the original message) says

"In the interim, I suggest that Sichuan Garden refund me three times the amount of the overcharge. The tripling reflects the approach provided under Massachusetts Consumer Protection Statue, MGL 93a, etc. etc. blah blah"

I don't think that he demanded a settlement... in a concise, clear, short message, he explained what he believes is his right, and he suggested the restaurant to pay him $12.

At that point in time (the initial complain), if the restaurant had paid him $12, then that would had been the end of it. Right?

But somehow, the restaurant did not pay (Mr. Duan (resturant owner) "responded about 20 minutes later, writing that the website prices had been out-of-date for 'quite some time'...") and this got out of hand.


How would I handle something like this conflict (a dispute over $12)?
I would reply to the email and say "Listen prof, why don't you come back and I will credit you $15 on your next dine in meal? In the meanitme I will look into the issue with our website"


And that would had been the end of it.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
You're missing my point. How this story is viewed is largely because the slant media put on it. You're also minimizing the current trend of demonizing "intellectual elitists" that is very pronounced in the United States and becoming more so in Canada.
Click to expand...
How EVERY story is viewed is dependent on the media slant. Newspapers stopped being newspapers years ago; they all have an agenda and write to that agenda, be it the conservative/redneck Sun or the Red Star.
Personally, I think the "intellectual elitists" have largely demonized themselves. Their first line of attack in almost any debate is to denigrate the intelligence of anyone who has an opposing view. It's practically a universal law at the Star, which last year made a public appeal for the city's 'elite's' (they actually used that word) to join them in crucifying Rob Ford. They wrote to 100 prominent people and asked them to each write a letter describing how awful Ford was. The appeal included some veiled threats if the selected elites didn't reply in an appropriate and timely manner. That's what "journalism" has become. Fortunately, it didn't quite go as the Star had planned.
As for this particular story, I came across the emails on some website, without any editorial, just the notation that they were between a lawyer and a restaurant. So my opinion - all 0.02 worth - is based on the content of the emails, not some media flack's interpretation.
 
CanadianBiker said:
How EVERY story is viewed is dependent on the media slant. Newspapers stopped being newspapers years ago; they all have an agenda and write to that agenda, be it the conservative/redneck Sun or the Red Star.
Personally, I think the "intellectual elitists" have largely demonized themselves. Their first line of attack in almost any debate is to denigrate the intelligence of anyone who has an opposing view. It's practically a universal law at the Star, which last year made a public appeal for the city's 'elite's' (they actually used that word) to join them in crucifying Rob Ford. They wrote to 100 prominent people and asked them to each write a letter describing how awful Ford was. The appeal included some veiled threats if the selected elites didn't reply in an appropriate and timely manner. That's what "journalism" has become. Fortunately, it didn't quite go as the Star had planned.
As for this particular story, I came across the emails on some website, without any editorial, just the notation that they were between a lawyer and a restaurant. So my opinion - all 0.02 worth - is based on the content of the emails, not some media flack's interpretation.
Click to expand...

The Star thing was in response to Rob Ford, and his ilk, repeatedly making comments about 'the elites' in Toronto and in the Provincial Government, going back years. Chicken, meet egg. Agreed; it isn't journalism. That doesn't mean it's wrong for me to call it out when it occurs. Quite the contrary.

If it's about the emails, then I recommend that you read MarcosSantiago's comment, above.
 
MarcosSantiago said:
Uno momento por favor... the Harvard professor original email (or what seems to be the original message) says

"In the interim, I suggest that Sichuan Garden refund me three times the amount of the overcharge. The tripling reflects the approach provided under Massachusetts Consumer Protection Statue, MGL 93a, etc. etc. blah blah"

I don't think that he demanded a settlement... in a concise, clear, short message, he explained what he believes is his right, and he suggested the restaurant to pay him $12.

At that point in time (the initial complain), if the restaurant had paid him $12, then that would had been the end of it. Right?

But somehow, the restaurant did not pay (Mr. Duan (resturant owner) "responded about 20 minutes later, writing that the website prices had been out-of-date for 'quite some time'...") and this got out of hand.


How would I handle something like this conflict (a dispute over $12)?
I would reply to the email and say "Listen prof, why don't you come back and I will credit you $15 on your next dine in meal? In the meanitme I will look into the issue with our website"


And that would had been the end of it.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. However, I would offer that when a lawyer writes "suggest" you do such-and-such, it can properly be termed a 'demand'. I'm splitting hairs, here, though.
The statute you cite also makes it very clear that only the court can award damages of between two and three times the amount in dispute. The lawyer was trying to circumvent due process. And given the near-religious zeal with which the lawyer pursued the matter, I have doubts that a $15 in-store credit would have satisfied him.
I think the guy was a jerk. Others feel differently. C'est la vie.
 
I also saw the group of letters first, although it was titled Prof overreacts ...


He suggested being paid three times the difference.


Owner came back and suggested that he'd pay him the difference.


Prof. then said that he's contacted the authorities, who he knows well, in order to compel the restaurant to identify all consumers affected and issue refunds.

Doesn't sound like it was much of a suggestion to me. He clearly escalated thing a couple of levels, when the suggestion was counter offered. Then he escalated again, saying that he would only further discuss things with the restaurant's lawyer, implying that they to hire needed one.

I've known some really great professors, and some real ****** bags.

Same with lawyers.
 
Last edited:
Baggsy said:
I also saw the group of letters first, although it was titled Prof overreacts ...


He suggested being paid three times the difference.


Owner came back and suggested that he'd pay him the difference.


Prof. then said that he's contacted the authorities, who he knows well, in order to compel the restaurant to identify all consumers affected and issue refunds.

Doesn't sound like it was much of a suggestion to me. He clearly escalated thing a couple of levels, when the suggestion was counter offered. Then he escalated again, saying that he would only further discuss things with the restaurant's lawyer, implying that they to hire needed one.

I've known some really great professors, and some real ****** bags.

Same with lawyers.
Click to expand...

I might have reacted the same way that he did to that politely worded PFO and we'll get around to it some time letter, just without the credentials to back me up. It could easily be taken as an indication that the restaurant was making use of the improperly quoted pricing to their benefit, and the detriment of their patrons. I would suggest that it was the escalation, and not a mea culpa, that had them correct their prices so quickly. Some business people take the concept of "business ethics" quite seriously.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I might have reacted the same way that he did to that politely worded PFO and we'll get around to it some time letter, just without the credentials to back me up. It could easily be taken as an indication that the restaurant was making use of the improperly quoted pricing to their benefit, and the detriment of their patrons. I would suggest that it was the escalation, and not a mea culpa, that had them correct their prices so quickly. Some business people take the concept of "business ethics" quite seriously.
Click to expand...

If he'd asked for four dollars and not twelve, and it still escalated, then I'd agree with you.
If the owner hadn't agreed to refund the difference, then I'd agree with you.
If dozens of others had come forward for a refund when it came out, then I'd agree with you.
Let's leave it at that.
 
Baggsy said:
If he'd asked for four dollars and not twelve, and it still escalated, then I'd agree with you.
If the owner hadn't agreed to refund the difference, then I'd agree with you.
If dozens of others had come forward for a refund when it came out, then I'd agree with you.
Let's leave it at that.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and CanadianBiker that the professor is a jerk.

But there's also the small detail that he is right. The restaurant was doing a variation of bait and switch, which at the end, is fraud. And the prof is doing the principle thing, even if he is doing it wrong.

Do I believe the owner of the restaurant that it was an innocent mistake? That I don't know. Maybe not.
 
Baggsy said:
If he'd asked for four dollars and not twelve, and it still escalated, then I'd agree with you.
If the owner hadn't agreed to refund the difference, then I'd agree with you.
If dozens of others had come forward for a refund when it came out, then I'd agree with you.
Let's leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Apparently the primary issue was with the false advertising, based on the professor's reaction. When he got the PFO response with respect to that, he escalated. It also seems to ultimately have had the desired effect.
 
MarcosSantiago said:
I agree with you and CanadianBiker that the professor is a jerk. But there's also the small detail that he is right. The restaurant was doing a variation of bait and switch, which at the end, is fraud. And the prof is doing the principle thing, even if he is doing it wrong. Do I believe the owner of the restaurant that it was an innocent mistake? That I don't know. Maybe not.
Click to expand...
Bait and switch is where you advertise something at a very low price, and when the customer shows up, it isn't available. Not the case here. It's either ignorance or apathy, regarding the update of the web pricing. I was a recent victim of a similar issue. Wife wanted to buy a car. Local dealership had 12 of the model listed as being for sale. When we arrived, we were told that there was one, and instead of 400 km, it had 12,000+ on it. Checked back a week later and the twelve were still listed. That experience sways my opinions of other similar experiences. I believe that if you look carefully, you'll find many cases where things haven't been updated on web sites.
 
Baggsy said:
Bait and switch is where you advertise something at a very low price, and when the customer shows up, it isn't available. Not the case here. It's either ignorance or apathy, regarding the update of the web pricing. I was a recent victim of a similar issue. Wife wanted to buy a car. Local dealership had 12 of the model listed as being for sale. When we arrived, we were told that there was one, and instead of 400 km, it had 12,000+ on it. Checked back a week later and the twelve were still listed. That experience sways my opinions of other similar experiences. I believe that if you look carefully, you'll find many cases where things haven't been updated on web sites.
Click to expand...

This is actually a big thing with many car dealers and manufacturers let go of people for less. I know that major car websites are reviewed daily and updated weekly to coincide with online pricing guidelines that have come to light in Canada (as well as clearer all-in pricing). Not sure what this means for used inventory.
 
nfq said:
This is actually a big thing with many car dealers and manufacturers let go of people for less. I know that major car websites are reviewed daily and updated weekly to coincide with online pricing guidelines that have come to light in Canada (as well as clearer all-in pricing). Not sure what this means for used inventory.
Click to expand...

I was ****** enough about it that I bought elsewhere.

I believe that the salesman we dealt with there was listed as web sales.

Does that mean that he was responsible for not updating the listings?

Funny enough, the service section seems very up to date and competitive.


I guess we know another reason that computer hardware places list stuff as "call for price".

I'm not sure what the expectation for small businesses to update their web pricing should be. You want someone doing it, that you can trust.


I'm used to dealing with the old paper menus,
that could go out of date week to week.

So I see a price for food and view it as a being from a point in time,
and not for all eternity (until it's updated).

Perhaps a disclaimer stating that there prices were valid as at yyymmdd,
and would be updated or confirmed during the phone order.
 
Baggsy said:
Bait and switch is where you advertise something at a very low price, and when the customer shows up, it isn't available. Not the case here. It's either ignorance or apathy, regarding the update of the web pricing. I was a recent victim of a similar issue. Wife wanted to buy a car. Local dealership had 12 of the model listed as being for sale. When we arrived, we were told that there was one, and instead of 400 km, it had 12,000+ on it. Checked back a week later and the twelve were still listed. That experience sways my opinions of other similar experiences. I believe that if you look carefully, you'll find many cases where things haven't been updated on web sites.
Click to expand...

Well, I think it is bait and switch, but it doesn't matter what you want to call it. I won't argue about terminology.

The fact is, the restaurant was deceptive, and the professor is rightfully complaining.

What do you do when a jerk is right? ;)
 
Got tired of Subway last summer and thought Hey, Mr. Sub has daily specials as well. Sure enough, right there in the widow, the posters laid bare all I needed to know. Walked in, ordered the sammich du jour at the loss leader price and was informed no dice. But but in the window......"Oh no that's no longer current, we're changing things around" Anyway, they did accommodate me but I was somewhat surprised that nobody rushed right over to rip the offending posters from the window. As a lark I went by a couple times in the ensuing weeks to see if the posters were still up. Yes but eventually they came down. These things take time I guess.
 
If their actual price were lowered below the price on the sign or website, it would be changed in a minute. It's not rocket science.
 
alhope34 said:
3 5/8" x 1 5/8". I use 3 5/8" steel studs and track every day at work because it's meant to mimic a 2x4's planed size.
Click to expand...

inreb said:
I think I can relate. Being charged an additional $3 and change for "shop supplies" on a quicky oil change. I didn't initially see the menu board so I asked and was given a price. Of course I can assume plus tax. Any additional charges I should be made aware of up front. If they can't be honest about this what else are they doing to increase profit. Does one then automatically trust Chinese food ingredients? I say make a fuss. The first time somebody called a 3.5 by 1.5 inch piece of lumber a 2x4 I knew to put all phazers on stun. It's been downhill ever since. Scammers.
Click to expand...
Shops charge this because they use brake clean to clean your drain plug and oil filter area. You know if they wanted to be a dick they could charge out a can of brake clean instead and they used compressed air or rags to blow make dry. I agree they should tell you upfront about it but 3 bucks is nothing I've heard of shops charging 7. It should be included in the price of the oil change I do agree there
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom