1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Harvard professor is just the worst

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by JayFarrar, Dec 9, 2014.

  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I'm with X-hack, too. But as he said, it was the approach that made him ridiculous, not him being wrong about being overcharged. I am glad he was a jerk, for what it is worth, because that was entertaining beyond belief. I hope it's causing him inexorable grief. He proved he was the smartest person ever to order Chinese food. ... and hopefully his colleagues are laughing at him behind his back and he's been hit with endless prank calls asking if he'd like a side order of pompous with his poo poo platter.

    Believe that it was an honest mistake or believe the owner is trying to rip everyone off. But the owner's response to him was polite and reasonable enough. If at that point you think it was an honest mistake, get your refund. If you don't, take the refund and never order from there again.
     
  2. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    Wait, there is a possibility of some underhandedness by the restaurant, sure, but when weighed against the correspondence, who are you more likely to believe? That's where you decide who's right and who's wrong.

    The disclaimer is sufficient to avoid liability I'm pretty sure.

    The restaurant owner had some (1) great instincts or (2) good counsel on his shoulder to keep up the mantra about letting the authorities enforce the penalty.

    If Professor was the lead plaintiff, I'm sure the jury would not award him anything.
     
  3. X-Hack

    X-Hack Well-Known Member

    He's actually not even entitled to multiple damages under Ch. 93A (the Mass. consumer protection law) unless a judge determines, after a judicial finding that the law's been violated, that they're merited. In that case the judge can -- but is not required to -- order treble damages, which means Edelman was never legally entitled to triple what he was overcharged. But before even suing under ch. 93A, you have to issue a Ch. 93A demand letter, which Edelman kind of did, and then the guy offered to remedy it, which would then satisfy the demand. So he'd most likely lose in court.

    I agree the restaurant owner looks a lot more sympathetic since this guy was such as ass about it. But again, I wouldn't be suprised if there wasn't some underhandedness.
     
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    How does that ever get anywhere near a jury? Isn't that the domain of small claims court -- at which point the professor likely pisses off an overworked judge by lecturing him or her about the law?

    There is no penalty for any authority to enforce, or am I wrong about this? In a dispute between a restaurant and a customer, it would take a court to decide who is at fault and come up with the judgment, wouldn't it? Even if this is somehow a criminal matter, the way the professor suggested, the "authorities" don't just show up and tell you whether you're guilty or not and what your penalty and punishment is.

    Second, the way I read that e-mail exchange, the prof went from having a grievance (that looked legit). ... to trying to use that grievance for extortion purposes. You don't get to demand damages when there is a pricing dispute.
     
  5. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    An academic chomping at the bit to show off how much smarter he is than everyone else, but having no awareness of a real world extending beyond his classroom?

    Color me shocked.
     
  6. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    This reminds me of the profile of Ted Cruz last year that noted he drew a reputation for arrogance at Harvard Law School, which is pretty tough to do.
     
  7. SnarkShark

    SnarkShark Well-Known Member

    What really swayed me against Prof. Pretentious was when he demanded $12 instead of just the $4 refund. What a douche.
     
  8. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    My favorite part is when he inquires as to whether the guy has retained counsel in this matter, as if anybody's gonna go out and hire a lawyer to represent them in a fucking four dollar dispute. So obvious he asked that as a pretext to throw out the "I'm a lawyer too!" scare tactic.

    He comes across almost like someone doing a caricature of the stereotypical self-important gasbag. And without an ounce of understanding of how normal people think--he's probably shocked today to learn that people think he's the one being douchebag in that correspondence.
     
  9. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    He kind of reminds me of the reporter from the major newspaper who would show up for the big events and big-time all of us small-paper hacks, not pay a lick of attention to the game, and then plagiarize us in his story.
     
  10. clintrichardson

    clintrichardson Active Member

    i have to say, i've been caught in this trap of the small overcharge with the outdated menu on the website, and i have to wonder if this isn't an intentional ploy with some restaurants as a way of hitting you with a hidden fee. or at least, intentional laziness—they increase their prices, but are in no big hurry to update an online menu with the lower ones.

    the couple times this has happened i've just paid it and gone on with my day/night. the professor is a douche, but a douche with a point. it's like the infamous mcdonald's coffee lawsuit. the plaintiff did have a point, and mcdonald's lower the temperature of its coffee.
     
  11. Jake_Taylor

    Jake_Taylor Well-Known Member

    I would be annoyed about being charged a little extra too, but 99 percent of us would be completely satisfied to be refunded the $4. If it really bothered me or seemed intentional I would just consider a different restaurant next time. This was ridiculous.
     
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page