The Harvard Business School professor who threatened to sue a Chinese restaurant over an outdated online menu may have improperly cited Massachusetts law in doing so.
Ben Edelman claims that the Sichuan Garden in Brookline overcharged him by $4 — each item Edelman purchased cost $1 more than the online menu advertised.
When contacted, Sichuan Garden employee Ran Duan apologized and explained that the online menu was out of date.
Edelman was not happy, and a heated argument ensued in which the professor cited Massachusetts consumer protection statute and demanded a refund of three times the amount of the overcharge. You can read the full email exchange at Boston.com.
Slate highlighted a blog post by Georgetown University law professor Adam Levitin that reveals a hole in Edelman’s argument.
Edelman refers to “treble damages,” in which a consumer would be awarded three times the damages in consumer cases in which the defendant misbehaves, according to Slate’s Jordan Weissmann.
But according to Levitin, Edelman is improperly citing the law and would likely not be able to win treble damages in court.
A person can win double or treble damages “if the court finds that the use or employment of the act or practice was a willful or knowing violation” or if the defendant refused “in bad faith” to reimburse the consumer. Read Levitin’s full explanation here.
And Sichuan Garden told Boston.com that they’ve received a ton of support from people all over the country, as well as from Harvard students and graduates.
“We have been overwhelmed with the response and support that has flooded our way. It means the world to know that there are still good people in this world,” Duan said in a statement. “We have been offered donations, free services, including website services and legal advice, which I kindly denied.”
Harvard business professor should practice business professoring and leave the law professoring to the Harvard law professors.
A second story on this today? I would have thought the first one could have covered it all by just reporting, “Harvard Prof an Asshole” and left it at that.
He should put this episode on his business practices consulting c.v. After all, it’s provided the restaurant enormous good will and free national advertising.
Next move: forget suing, he’ll only lose and it’d never have been worth the effort in the first place. Instead, send the restaurant a bill for services in enhancing the business activity, prospects and value of the restaurant.
And I expect there’s other things he could do as well to keep this on the TPM headlines page, at least.
Not sure why an associate professor wants to call this much attention to himself and his school.
I told you this already under the last article.