<p>In theory, I have no problem with calling a business owner on situations like this. But in demanding the triple damages, this guy makes me suspect that he is not doing it for the benefit of all consumers, but is basically happy to find these types of errors so that he can shake them down for additional self-benefit. While one could say the businesses can profit from making these small “errors” over time, the same is true of the prof who demands triple damages from businesses on the spot when he knows full well that triple damages are only mandated when the case goes to court and the court decides such in favor of the plaintiff. It makes me wonder if he has his own little scam going on.</p>
<p>Good grief, I hope this prof never goes to dim sum! The server simply marks down the size/type of plates that you pick, sometimes scribble in chinese characters. At the end of the meal they decipher the tab into some reasonable amount. You look, shrug and pay. </p>
<p>He may be right in principle, but over the top in reaction.l It’s like using a sledge hammer instead of a flyswatter. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really, Cobrat! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not think so. You are showing sympathy for the restaurant owner and see him as a victim of bullying. I can see that point, and also find the HBS to be a jerk. This said, MY larger point is that there are no real downside for restaurants, bar owners, or grocery stores to overcharge customers. Offering to refund the overcharge does NOT carrt any penalty. At best, the customer gets a feeble apology to compensate for wasting his or her time. </p>
<p>What happens when Walmart overrings items and you DO notice it? You got to spend time getting the refund. What happens when your friendly bartender or server rings the top shelf item when you did not order it? Again, at best you might get the correct charge and probably some attitude to boot. </p>
<p>My point is that there are plenty of incentives to be dishonest because MOST people do NOT pay attention or do NOT want to argue over a small difference. People like the antagonist of the HBS dude know that very well and probably your Harvard friends as well, if they were not imaginary! </p>
<p>The HBS professor might be a jerk, but that does not change much about the basic problem created by the restaurant. Be it by accident or … by design. </p>
<p>^^^ I am with @xiggi on this one. I’ve been overcharged many times and I am tired of it. </p>
<p>I’ve been overcharged a few times, but rarely had issues correcting it on the spot. Moreover, almost never had attitudes from the owner/staff. </p>
<p>Then again, I do check my receipts before leaving the counter and I don’t go threatening to sue them for triple damages after they’ve made a good faith effort to remedy the issue whenever there IS an error. </p>
<p>The HBS Prof illustrates a stereotype so common it’s even written about in lawyer magazines/journals about how far too many attorneys forget that just because something is legal for them to do doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best thing to do for the sake of client interests, proportionality, or clients/lawyer PR. </p>
<p>The sayings “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should” and “discretion is the better part of valor” are very applicable to attorneys falling into that trap…including Edelman. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cobrat, how about this twist … </p>
<p>The restaurant acknowledges the mistake on the website but sets aside a suggestion to credit 12 dollars by offering the following: </p>
<p>“We clearly recognize that our prices posted on the website were outdated, and we understand your points about the legality of our actions. Yet, we are a small business and do not have much time to devote on such matters. We tend to focus on the quality of our food. To properly compensate your for your frustration, allow us to offer you something that could please all of us. Rather than refunding you 4 or 12 dollars, we invite you to chose any item of our (correctly priced menu) up to 12 PLUS 4 dollars or a total of 16 dollars. We’d be honored to see you again in our store.”</p>
<p>Who’d get the sympathy vote now? And, fwiw, I hope you realize that offering 16 dollars of food probably cost a lot less than refunding 4 dollars on a credit card. </p>
<p>^ ^</p>
<p>Xiggi,</p>
<p>However, that’s not what happened in the Sichuan Garden case which was what this thread was about. </p>
<p>If anything, the restaurant owner/rep came out looking like the much more reasonable party dealing in good faith whereas Ben Edelman seemed like an officious arrogant bully making over-the-top legal threats even other law Profs have called him out for. </p>
<p>Moreover, this case is one where the power disparity was in Ben Edelman’s favor as he himself points out in those emails by citing himself as an HBS Prof and lawyer with vast legal knowledge of Massachusetts laws. A form of intimidation by status/occupation that thankfully the restaurant rep refused to kowtow to while remaining civilly polite. </p>
<p>The restauranteur offering to comp a future purchase is a common response to these kinds of scenarios, or ones where the customer is dissatisfied with the food or the service or otherwise had a bad experience.</p>
<p>Minor point, but apparently Edelman first tried to reach Duan through the website and received no response. He might have thought he was being ignored, so he emailed and turned up the burners. Looks like, based on the time stamps, that he probably emailed the next day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read some reports that there was an issue with updates to the website. If that’s the case, he might have encountered a technical glitch like the remailer might have been down/no longer working. </p>
<p>Considering the nature of their business, I don’t imagine they have much in way of IT resources. </p>
<p>Most of us have jobs where small mistakes are made. I also find nothing suspicious about them agreeing to the problem so quickly. Any business that’s been going for awhile will know their typical issues from their customers.</p>
<p>But there is something to be said for a little kindness and understanding. Most business owners will do the right thing when they discover there is a legitimate problem. A lot of times they’ll go overboard, or take care of the bill, even if they are right just to please a customer. </p>
<p>If you went to my email and sent an email through the general mailbox it would take longer to see it then if you called or emailed me directly. </p>
<p>He could have picked up the phone, but then he wouldnt have had the chain of discussion in writing. </p>
<p>There is no evidence that the website’s email wasn’t working. Perhaps its simply that he hadn’t seen it yet, but Edelman wanted a prompt response, and was annoyed when he didnt hear back at the speed he wanted. Who knows.</p>
<p>The guy got himself a lot of bad press for overreaction. You think Harvard is happy? I think his odds of getting tenure have just dramatically dipped. </p>
<p>Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.</p>
<p>Someone said “Glad he apologized. Now Sichuan Garden can raise their prices again.”</p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>Ha, I’ve made my share of mistakes as a structural engineer, and when those happen in buildings or bridges, that’s not a good thing! That’s why I have to pay a bunch for errors and omissions insurance. Recently, I accidentally drew two large column footings about five feet from where they were supposed to go. Oops. Fortunately, the contractor noticed my mistake in time.</p>
<p>I wish all I had to worry about was overcharging somebody a few dollars.</p>
<p><a href=“In Defense of Harvard Professor Ben Edelman”>In Defense of Harvard Professor Ben Edelman;
<p>First he tried to defend his behavior and spin it <a href=“Ben Edelman Defends His Decision to Fight Restaurant Overcharge”>Ben Edelman Defends His Decision to Fight Restaurant Overcharge; , then he apologized <a href=“Ben Edelman Apologizes to Sichuan Garden Chinese Restaurant”>Ben Edelman Apologizes to Sichuan Garden Chinese Restaurant;
<p>Every Christmas needs its Ebenezer Scrooge. Edelman paints a far from charismatic image and could have use a softer hand in making his point. A point that remains ENTIRELY valid and one that needs to be addressed. This is especially true as our advertising has moved from print to digital distribution. </p>
<p>Let’s face it. If we would have a thread about Walmart or Target not respecting a posted price, I bet you that 100 percent of the posters would decry the tactics. If I would start a thread about overcharging at supermarkets, restaurants, or bars, I bet you that there would be quite a few responses. Heck, for restaurants, all you need is to look at some of the shows that expose the tactics of waiters and managers. The bottom line: consumers are being ripped off as soon as they drop their guard. </p>
<p>And, to make it worse, the people who complain are the jerks. Stop a line at Safeway to correct a price, and the eyes start to roll. Little wonder why people simply start to accept that being ripped off is just part of the system. Again, at best, you get back what was yours in the first place, and with some aggravation to boot. </p>
<p>Simply stated, Edelman, in spite of his bombastic attitude had a point. The stores that overcharge customers through misleading ads (and the excuse of having an old website does NOT fly here) should have a HIGHER cost than simply refunding the erroneous charge. A good start would be to have laws that call for a COMPLETE reversal of the charges if the error is demonstrated/ Forget treble damages for a few bucks. The ridicule about claiming 12 dollars is all but too apparent. What about a simple policy that made the entire take-out free is the overcharge is proven? </p>
<p>Would that get the attention of the merchants who are known to play fast and loose with a few bucks left and right? I’d think so! </p>
<p>Anyhow, if this story prompted people to start checking their receipts with more attention, it is a victory. And it should be poetic justice for all those merchants who have ripped off customers for a long time. </p>
<p>As someone who checks their receipts and pricing, I agree with the “buyer beware” recommendation. It just that in this case his approach came across as overkill, and probably backfired if his goal was to hurt the manager of the restaurant. He could have pointed out the error, let Duan know that he could contact the authorities ( but not yet do it-thats overkill) and he could ask for 3x his loss in recoupment (seems a bit silly, if not kinda obnoxious in this case, for a net difference of $8) rather than his $4 overcharge. So in the long run, while in principle he was right he came across as a jerk-- maybe in his case, a Hannukah-hater Harry rather than a scrooge.</p>
<p>As I mentioned in another thread, I just bought a box of Costco Pacific Bold k-cup coffee things - box of $100 for $34.99. On their website they sell a box of 200 for $77.99. Say whaa??? But wait- it comes with “free shipping”. Seems to me that “free shipping” costs $8.01. Reminds me of the “free with a $5 donation” or “free - plus $3.95 postage and handling” pitches. </p>