"I will argue that the City of Boston ought not renew such license to a restaurant that does not honor its contractual commitments."
That Harvard business professor, Ben Edelman, had another email exchange, one that hangs on the question whether a prix fixe constitutes an "offer" within the meaning of a Groupon deal that can't be used with other offers.
Maybe Edelman is in the middle of an elaborate project and in the end there will be a book in the tradition of "The Lazlo Letters."
१२ डिसेंबर, २०१४
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०२ टिप्पण्या:
or maybe he's just an asshole?
"Maybe Edelman is in the middle of an elaborate project"
Sometimes an ass is just an ass.
Edelman is the nephew of Peter and Marion Wright Edelman, of Children's Defense Fund fame. Perhaps he misconstrued it as defense of acting like a child.
Turn him loose on Uber. That should stop them.
Commercial Law that criminalizes Commerce is the next internet sensation. Onward Puritan Soldiers, marching as to moral superiority war with the power of government going on before.
You can't beat the original Lazlo Letters. Sequels not as good but okay.
Two people came off very well in the original book, Nixon and Nguyen Van Thieu. I don't know if Lazlo noticed or not.
I wonder how people like this make it through life without getting a serious beat down once in a while. Henry VI had it about right.
Edelman apologized over the Sichuan Garden kerfuffle. Kind of gives lie to the line that he was a public crusader.
Could a reasonable person go either way on the point? Yes. So a lawsuit or complaint is abusive.
My favorite Lazlo tweak was writing to Hersey's about a faulty Herseyette and calling it an M&M.
In culinary terms, this guy is an amuse douche.
The Laslo letters were fake instigations that produced ludicrous responses from actual people.
This seems more like real instigations from a ludicrous person, producing incredulous responses from the amazed yet long suffering recipients.
You guys gotta be kidding! The professor is great.
He probably laughs out loud when he writes this stuff.
Gahrie-- brevity is indeed the soul of wit.
I can't speak to Edelman, but sometimes, if conditions are just right, a regular asshole can become a 'super-asshole' with winds of 150 mph or greater.
Prix fixe obviously doesn't constitute an "offer."
Edelman fancies himself as akin to an aristocrat who is at least a class above the mere merchants and to whom deference must be shown.
The condescension comes naturally. He feels entitled to act this way. Add that to the observations above that he's likely just an asshole too, and this is the result.
He deserves an egalitarian beat down.
in the end there will be a book in the tradition of "The Lazlo Letters."
Or in the tradition of Letters from a Nut: Ted L. Nancy
Who is Ted L. Nancy?
He's a concerned hotel guest searching for a lost tooth...
He's a superstitious Vegas high-roller who wants to gamble at a casino in his lucky shrimp outfit...
He's the genius inventor of "Six Day Underwear"...
He's a demanding dramatist seeking an audience for his play about his 26-year-old dog, Cinnamon...
He's the proud owner of Charles, a 36-year-old cat who owes his longevity to a pet food company...
He's a loyal fan of the King of Tonga...
He is, in reality, a twisted prankster -- a supremely off-kilter alter ego who sends patently ridiculous letters and queries to (and receives surprisingly earnest responses back from) corporate honchos, entertainment conglomerates, national publications, politicians, celebrities and heads of state to everyone, in fact, from the president of the Bon Ami Cleanser Company to U.S. Vice President Al Gore.
They sold vouchers as part of a promotion and didn't honor them. I thought the guy was silly over four dollars in the other dispute, but how is he the bad guy here?
Prix fixe can't constitute an offer in the sense that it is being used in the Groupon coupon. It's a menu item and the whole point of coupons, all coupons, is to apply to the price listed. "No other offers" obviously means "no other deals."
It's his willingness to use the regulatory state to bring pain far exceeding any wrongdoing
Sure, he's an ass, but he's aiming his ass at businesses that mistreat the customer. As with the Chinese Restaurant, they brought it on themselves.
Groupon offers aren't coupons. People have to buy them. So the restaurant sold these vouchers, taking people's money for them, and then tried not to honor them. That's stealing.
If his goal is to bring down businesses that bring grief to middle America...
He should start with Harvard.
"Sometimes an ass is just an ass."
But that can nevertheless be an art project.
That's the sort of thing the state is for.
The story is more complex than that, Freeman. The Groupon coupon itself stated that it couldn't be applied on top of other "offers." Edelman wanted to apply it to the "prix fixe" menu, which the restaurant argued was an "offer" (lower prices for limited choices) for which the coupon didn't apply.
Their argument is absurd. That would be like Mcdonald's refusing to honor a coupon on extra value meals, arguing that the extra value meals were offers themselves. A prix fixe is not an "offer."
"Prix fixe obviously doesn't constitute an "offer.""
That's an assertion, not an argument. What is an offer? A prix fixe is a single price for a set of courses that you'd otherwise order a la carte, and you get a better price by ordering the whole set. It's special deal in that sense. The professor tries to exclude it on the ground that it's not something offered only for a short time, but if that were the case then the phrase "limited time offer" would be a redundancy.
I'm not saying which side of the argument I agree with, only that it's not obvious.
I'd tend to construe the text against its author. Business was attracted with the deal, and they could have explicitly excluded prix fixe.
Now granted, I'm not a lawyer.
But I was take "fixed price" to mean "fixed price" unless it was explicitly included. Maybe in legalese this is not the case, and maybe the restaurant should know that.
But that does not strike me as unreasonable. What does strike me increasingly as unreasonable is a douchebag going around trying to shut down restaurants that apparently, everyone else is fine with.
But let's go one further - I suspect our fellow Edelman is an SJW and sympathizes with the usual suspects. As such, let's judge him by his own standards (great patriarchal oppressive surname there, by the way!)
New argument: Here we see a white man trying to run Asians out of town.
1) Why is Harvard employing a racist?
2) Is this professor in any way responsible for the disturbing trend in anti-Asian policies being circulated around America's admissions processes, including Harvard's?
These are the real questions. Ignore Freeman (goddess, you cis-male patriarchal oppressors can't HELP but reveal your nature through your names!) - he wants to keep you from the truth and obfuscate the conditions and cause of your enslavement to the privileged.
Sounds like his dispute was with groupon, not the restaurant.
"But that can nevertheless be an art project."
Is his apology consistent with the performance art hypothesis?
Think about it like this:
prix fixe: order an appetizer and entrée, and get dessert for free.
Edelman wants to have his cake, and a discount, too.
What a douchebag. Probably makes $500,000 a year but he beats up on small business people for $3 or coupons.
Only assholes like him.
A wonderful illustration of how always insisting on one's legal rights is, at its heart, deeply antisocial. Laws are rules for when the ordinary machinery of society has broken down. Punctilious enforcement of legal rules everyday life is a kind of rejection of the ordinary social niceties and obligations -- an abstraction of ordinary human relations into an arid, atomised, alienated world of legal formalism. There are people who want that! But they are generally horrible.
"Reasons why I'm thankful to never have worked in retail #32,395"
9-1 he's a liberal Democrat and if not, a "Libertarian".
I'm surprised Garage or Rev haven't shown up and supported him.
One can only imagine that as a child, Endelman was just the sort to insist that the dollar was a gift and not a loan because there was no contract involved. Furthermore, his exact words were "Can I have a dollar for the coke* machine" not "May I borrow a dollar, to be paid back at the earliest possible convenience"
* Or however Yankees express their want of a carbonated sugary beverage.
That would be like Mcdonald's refusing to honor a coupon on extra value meals, arguing that the extra value meals were offers themselves.
McDonald's and other fast food chains do this, all the time.
It is exactly analogous to value menus at fast food restaurants. But there are other analogies.
If they wanted to count an appetizer platter, wherein one orders several appetizers altogether for less cost than it would cost to order each separately, as an "offer," would that be acceptable? What if they thought the catch of the day should be excluded too? How about entrees that come with sides and a salad for a lower price than it would be to order the sides and salads separately?
You could exclude nearly everything on most menus by their logic.
McDonald's and other fast food chains do this, all the time.
Not if the coupons don't explicitly state that these things are excluded.
The guy goes about things in a stupid way, but that doesn't make the restaurant right. Both parties can be wrong, the guy for his obnoxious manner and the restaurant for trying to cheat people.
I think he's just warming up in preparation for the Vexatious Litigant Olympics.
You could exclude nearly everything on most menus by their logic.
By your logic (and the asshole's), every menu will have to come with five pages of small print, which of course must be written by a lawyer.
By your logic (and the asshole's), every menu will have to come with five pages of small print, which of course must be written by a lawyer.
Oh? How do you figure that? It doesn't follow from anything I've written.
Oh? How do you figure that? It doesn't follow from anything I've written.
"The menu says one free refill with a meal. It doesn't say what size the refill can be, so if you don't let me fill up my five gallon bottle, I'll sue."
"The menu says one free refill with a meal. It doesn't say what size the refill can be, so if you don't let me fill up my five gallon bottle, I'll sue."
No, that would be in line with the other position, that prix fixe is an "offer." It's arguing against the common understanding of the words.
Gruber, Edelman, Obama...what is it with these Ivy league fools?
Balfegor said...
A wonderful illustration of how always insisting on one's legal rights is, at its heart, deeply antisocial.
I agree with your general sentiment, but would say "...always insisting on one's legal rights as a first resort and without consideration for other social mores, etc is deeply antisocial." I don't fault people for insisting on rights (not that this case rises to that level), but if one's first reaction to any problem is to insist that the letter of whatever arcane regulation or legal statute be followed precisely (as one construes them) then it is entirely fair to characterize that attitude as antisocial.
Althouse: "But that can nevertheless be an art project."
Is there anything in today's world that cannot be called an "art project"?
You could exclude nearly everything on most menus by their logic.
Many coupons are written this way, so I'm not surprised a groupon is. They are frustrating, always.
I'm surprised Garage or Rev haven't shown up and supported him
I'm not surprised Meade did (does?) support him.
Groupon gave him his money back. According to the restaurant, it told groupon to specifically exclude the fixed price stuff.
Edelman had a contract with Groupon and Groupon had a contract with the restaurant. A consumer likely was a third party beneficiary of the contract between Groupon and the restaurant. But if the contractual party, Groupon, broke its agreement with the restaurant by refusing to exclude the fixed price items the consumer can't hold the restaurant responsible, but could hold groupon responsible. Which is why groupon paid him back his money.
The restaurant and as right on the law. And given this guy is a total asshole, there was no business or customer relations reason to give him anything he was not entitled to.
A book: "How I became the Best Known Jerk in the USA"
"1) Why is Harvard employing a racist?"
Biases against East Asians is not being racist and is definitely OK. It's only racist if it is against "disadvantaged" minorities.
I started out reading it and thinking about his argument. He has a point, although I disagree with it. By the end of his Osushi texts, I felt like he was a shakedown artist. I longer cared about his point.
That Harvard business professor, Ben Edelman, had another email exchange, one that hangs on the question whether a prix fixe constitutes an "offer" within the meaning of a Groupon deal that can't be used with other offers.
I'd say no, since a prix fixe is not, typically, offered as a "discount" or "special" price.
Naturally, a stingy restaurant that has a low-margin prix fixe [aiming for wine to bring in the profits?] and an ill-advised Groupon ad that didn't exempt it would try and argue otherwise.
Groupon. People still use that? I thought it'd died out.
(The professor's still a dumbass, though.)
(And to add on to the above, remember that plenty of Fancy Places do only a prix fixe, to simplify their menu.
One might be used as a discounted offering, though I very rarely see that.
In itself a prix fixe does not imply a Special Offer or Discounted Item.)
I'm so relieved he got his money back. Hope he thinks it was worth the price he's paying.
Each of these entities should now write to him and tell him they refuse service to him going forward.
Imagine that -- the entitled aristocrat being shunned by the lower class. Cook your own damn food.
Reminds me of Potter v Boston Ice from first year contracts back in the dark ages. Did y'all study that one Althouse? It struck me to be a lot of fussing over something not nearly worth the effort and when I re-read it a few years out of law school it really seemed pointless. "What does this case stand for?" the professor asked and we scratched our young skulls and missed the obvious answer that it didn't "stand" for a damn thing. It just settled a dispute over the assignability of a contract to deliver ice.
mccullough said...Edelman had a contract with Groupon and Groupon had a contract with the restaurant...if the contractual party, Groupon, broke its agreement with the restaurant by refusing to exclude the fixed price items the consumer can't hold the restaurant responsible...
If Agency Law applies, and I'd be surprised if it didn't, then your analysis is not correct. I expect this to come down to the question of whether the "other offer" exclusion applies to menu prices, and the answer is obviously no, they don't. Because if they did, it would defeat the fundamental purpose of the coupon.
If he is not in the middle of a project, he is the biggest fool EVER.
I can't believe someone would make such an ass of himself if not for a deeper motive.
Fullmoon:
If your guess is correct, he has a juvenile sense of humor and too much time on his hands.
Now that I think of it, you're probably right.
Many coupons are written this way, so I'm not surprised a groupon is.
The problem is that it wasn't written that way.
Sigivald writes good sense.
And this,
And to add on to the above, remember that plenty of Fancy Places do only a prix fixe, to simplify their menu.
Exactly. And often the prix fixe is the fancier option at places that offer additional options.
.
Does this thing revolve around the guy being an associate professor at Harvard? I don't think many people would argue against him if he weren't. Say instead he was an old man on a pension who'd bought the Groupon offer specifically to be able to afford to take his wife out for the prix fixe. Suddenly he'd be the good guy!
Here's Edelman in an interview in India talking about, among other things, how the Internet can help small businesses, like restaurants (!).
He does a terrific Sheldon Cooper impersonation.
It puts the lotion on or it gets the hose.
Only 2 people so far have mentioned Edelman's aristocratic air. Why have the rest of you not seen this?
Who gives a damn about the legal argument?
The important question to my mind is whether Freeman Hunt would want to be Edelman's neighbor. Would you want to live beside this guy? Would you want him running your HOA?
If he's willing to be this much of an A-hole to people he doesn't know but who can identify him and make his communications public, what does it say about his psychology?
I thought we were discussing the legal argument. We're supposed to discuss whether or not we want this guy as a neighbor? What does that have to do with anything?
The Social Mediob Age: Who cares about law? Do we like this person?
Re: Freeman Hunt:
Does this thing revolve around the guy being an associate professor at Harvard? I don't think many people would argue against him if he weren't. Say instead he was an old man on a pension who'd bought the Groupon offer specifically to be able to afford to take his wife out for the prix fixe. Suddenly he'd be the good guy!
I think his being the bad guy -- at least in my eyes -- derives mostly from his immediate resort to the strident there's a law and you're a lawbreaker argument, as opposed to more suasive, sympathetic arguments. Even in old people, I would find such an argument off-putting. In some places, there are seats reserved specifically for the elderly, and if I see someone old looking for a seat, I get up and yield my seat. But if I missed him, and an old man were to insist upon his right to the seat, as opposed to asking for it, I would be offended. I would probably give it up in the end, but much more reluctantly.
As I think about it, my attitude on this point plays out in a lot of other contexts as well. I don't mean to derail this into a gay marriage thread, but I find the reasoning of pro-gay marriage arguments wholly unpersuasive, and the strident claims of right to be absurd and actually somewhat offensive. Still, I'm not actually opposed to gay marriage. The most sympathetic participants in the argument -- to me -- are those who don't engage in potty sophistry about how the concept of marriage logically has to include homosexual couplings or whatever and therefore courts must force the citizenry to do this or that, but rather are simply those gay or lesbian couples who would like the state to recognize their marriages, and thereby be able to file joint returns, enjoy visitation rights, etc. Full stop. Those people offer us an actual reason to introduce gay marriage into the law.
In almost every context, the person who asks directly in a spirit of mutuality and suasion, rather than appealing to an outside authority with the power to coerce, is more sympathetic to me. We all have to live together, after all, and it would be a horrid, horrid, horrid world if we all made a habit of deferring every disagreement to the law, which is -- in the end -- nothing more than rules backed by men with guns. Or lethal choke-holds, as the case may be.
Re: Alex:
Only 2 people so far have mentioned Edelman's aristocratic air. Why have the rest of you not seen this?
I think harping on legal niceties is just about as far from "aristocratic" as one can possibly get.
Balfegor, I agree with all that. Where I part ways with others is in then concluding that the restaurant is in the right. When I worked with customers on accounts, there were some who were offensive or unreasonable. That didn't necessarily make them wrong.
I'm looking at it from a business standpoint. You screwed up your GroupOn offer. Some guy with a bad attitude points this out to you. Do you focus on his attitude or make it right?
I say you make it right and ignore the attitude. You can always chuckle and shake your head when he leaves.
"Yes! I can see how this has been extremely frustrating for you. I am so sorry. We need to make this right. We'd be more than happy to accept your vouchers for the prix fixe. On future offers we will be sure to note any exclusions clearly. Thank you for bringing this problem to our attention, and I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused. We appreciate your business and hope you enjoy the prix fixe!"
Balfegor: ... In almost every context, the person who asks directly in a spirit of mutuality and suasion, rather than appealing to an outside authority with the power to coerce, is more sympathetic to me. ...
One of the most sensible comments I've read in a long time.
Freeman Hunt:
It is standard business practice that tie goes to the customer, and certainly when the customer is not at fault.
I wonder how people would respond to a large corporation not honoring their mistake. For example, several years ago, there was a listing at Amazon.com with an obviously mistaken price (i.e. extremely low), and as I recall the public sentiment favored the customers, not the business.
RE: Freeman:
Balfegor, I agree with all that. Where I part ways with others is in then concluding that the restaurant is in the right. When I worked with customers on accounts, there were some who were offensive or unreasonable. That didn't necessarily make them wrong.
True enough.
RE: n.n:
I wonder how people would respond to a large corporation not honoring their mistake. For example, several years ago, there was a listing at Amazon.com with an obviously mistaken price (i.e. extremely low), and as I recall the public sentiment favored the customers, not the business.
I think there's a point where the business side has become sufficiently bureaucratic/anonymous in its interaction with the outside world that punctilious rule-based arguments are the only appeals that reliably work against it. And our moral intuitions reflect that.
If, for example, these restaurants had decided to refer Edelman to legal counsel or a PR firm (or a robotic text-to-speech customer service phone tree) at first contact, his attitude wouldn't seem nearly so off-putting.
The dumb schmuck is simply trying to build his resume. He will claim wins while never disclosing details of the battles. A classless asshole if ever there was one.
This isn't about "the law" - its about $3 and a Goupon - whatever the hell that is, and beating up on a small business for fun and profit.
Yes, the rule of law. LOL.
I bet the asshole doesn't tip either and probably hires an illegal alien to mow his lawn for a $1.
Hey Pedro, you missed a spot over there. Sorry, you've violated your contract so I'll pay you 50 cents instead of $1.
Sorry miss, you were 30 seconds late with my Pumpkin spice latte and bagel, you violated your oral contract with me - so no tip.
Just be glad I don't get your fired.
Balfegor:
I don't disagree. However, in this case, I think both the business and customer responded disproportionately. And this reflects poorly on both; perhaps equally; pending evaluation of cause and effect.
A comparable case is when homosexual activists legally and publically beat up small businesses in order to force acceptance of their dysfunctional behavior, not orientation. It was even worse when they legally and publically beat up individual men and women in order to force acceptance. In a reverse "class action", a [homosexual] judge beat up the majority of the population in Los Angeles, notably Democrats, when they voted to prevent legalizing selective exclusion. There are some interesting juxtapositions that offer a far more compelling premise for a social project.
...old man were to insist upon his right to the seat, as opposed to asking for it, I would be offended. I would probably give it up in the end, but much more reluctantly....In almost every context, the person who asks directly in a spirit of mutuality and suasion, rather than appealing to an outside authority with the power to coerce, is more sympathetic to me. ...
I'm pretty sure the old guy would rather not stand there leaning on his cane for miles, trying to get you to give up the seat he is entitled to, while you carefully evaluate whether his spirit of mutuality is persuasive enough. He doesn't want your sympathy, he just wants a fucking seat. I hope he cracks your skull with his cane.
I already pointed this out in a comment section like two days ago, jeez.
Friday LIght Tits.
Only 2 people so far have mentioned Edelman's aristocratic air. Why have the rest of you not seen this?
Of course. If only Edelman had phrased his complaint in a way the proles could relate to, like, "Yo, dude! Price is too high, bro!" he would have been fine.
Freeman Hunt:
You were discussing something. i maintain agency for my own actions. You were unable to see my point. It's a shame because your earnestness is overwhelming your seeing the point I am hoping you will see by asking what you believed an off-topic question.
Oh well.
I'm pretty sure the old guy would rather not stand there leaning on his cane for miles, trying to get you to give up the seat he is entitled to, while you carefully evaluate whether his spirit of mutuality is persuasive enough.
Look, if we're in a world in which everyone argues their rights, we can spend the entire trip arguing whether or not he's really entitled. Whether he's old enough, whether there's superseding legal principles -- whatever. In a legalistic world one can quibble over everything, and the ride will be over before he gets a seat.
That's a horrible world, which is why the "rights" approach is so much worse than an approach in which he just asks politely if someone would yield his seat. And in practice, because old people aren't dumb as rocks, that's usually what happens -- in fact the elderly often don't even ask verbally, just stand close looking the other way until someone notices and gets up, and then they say thank you.
He doesn't want your sympathy, he just wants a fucking seat. I hope he cracks your skull with his cane.
Well, in the rule-based world, that's battery, so this old man had better hope he's beating someone who doesn't believe in asserting his legal rights.
Hint for verly earnest types:
Jury nullification.
The author states that the restaurant properly excluded the price fixe in its offer on restaurant.com. So, there is precedent for them excluding it if you use coupons at their restaurant. Further, the restaurant says it told Groupon that the price fixe was excluded,and when asked Groupon refused to answer. It sounds then like the mistake was Groupon's. So take it up with Groupon.
The guy is a major league a hole. He reminds me of the guy who sued Pepsi over Pepsi points, because on the commercial the guy who had millions of Pepsi points flew up on his lawn in a jet, and the guy watching the commercial took it as a literal offer and not as the obvious joke that it was.
I don't get how he could cite their exclusion of price fixe from their restaurant,com offers as par of his argument, since it would suggest that in fact the restuarant doesn't count the offers towards price fixe in other advertisements. And so considers price fixe as an offer by itself.
freeman hunt wrote:
Their argument is absurd. That would be like Mcdonald's refusing to honor a coupon on extra value meals, arguing that the extra value meals were offers themselves. A prix fixe is not an "offer."
and yet Eedelman himself says the restuarant rightfully excluded prix fixe in its offers on restuarant.com.
Doesn't that then suggest that it doesn't include prix fixe in its deals on restaurant/coupon websites. Don't see why they would exclude it in the one offer, but then Edelman would assume it somehow doesn't apply, simply because it's not stated as explicitly in thr groupon offer. They don't allow you to use coupons for prix fixe.
Tim,
Agency law doesn't apply here at all. It's pretty rare and difficult to apply it in the context of franchisee-franchisor.
At best, the customers are third party beneficiaries of groupon's contracts with restaurants, etc. I would be shocked if that agreement gave groupon the discretion to issue vouchers to customers on whatever terms groupon wants. Groupon issued a voucher not listing the fixed price exception even though the restaurant told groupon to include it.
Groupon fucked up, so they owed the customer the money. The restaurant isn't on the hook for groupon's mistake.
I wouldn't want this guy as a neighbor. I wouldn't want the supporters of this guy as neighbors. This is such a petty, trifling matter to be throwing around whatever weight you think the title of "law professor" grants you. In my experience, about as much as a pillowcase, since most laws are written by bureaucratic lawyers to be so complex and verbose that the little guy has no choice but to hire another such lawyer to represent him.
The legal field disgusts me. And this man resorting to legalities over such a tiny thing is icing on the cake of disgust. Right or wrong, I instinctively side against him for his attitude and self-importance. I hope he chokes on that food, and the proprietor of the restaurant forgets how to do the Heimlich. In matters so trifling, I always side with the person who shows humanity and kindness. If you shout angrily to me that 2+2=4, but the next guy cracks a joke and says, "ya know buddy, I heard it actually is 5 sometimes", I'm joining the jovial guy in throwing rocks at you until you leave.
not sure why everybody is dumping on this guy when he's making valid points. in the 4-dollar case, the first reaction from the restaurant was "oh yeah..our site if wrong. we'll get around to fixing that someday." that would have pissed me off too. and if the coupon in the other case is not going to be honored then they should stop authorizing coupons. granted, this guy has more time on his hands than i do in which to deal with this stuff but that doesn't automatically make him an "asshole".
"Doesn't that then suggest that it doesn't include prix fixe in its deals on restaurant/coupon websites."
No, that suggests that when prix fixe is not included, it is noted.
If GroupOn made the mistake, then GroupOn should be responsible for an corrective advertising and should probably refund the fees they took to post the offer. The customer, however, takes the issue up with the restaurant, not GroupOn. GroupOn is the advertiser. It would be like a misprinted price in a newspaper. In that case, the restaurant is not legally liable for honoring the incorrect offer (though that often makes the most business sense,) but the man would need to be refunded for the vouchers.
Restaurant GroupOn offers that people post to Facebook seem to usually be in the $25 to $50 range, and this guy had three, so you could be talking about $75 to $150.
But the restaurant would need to establish that GroupOn made a mistake. I would assume that GroupOn is like any other media publisher and makes someone sign off on final copy. My guess is that they sent the final copy, and someone at the restaurant signed it with the comment that the prix fixe exclusion needed to be added. (Don't sign those unless that's the copy you want!) But they can hash all that out.
Edelman's a lawyer, right? I wonder in what jurisdiction(s)? His letter to the sushi restaurant (threatening to oppose the restaurant in some administrative proceeding unless they agreed to his demands) is a violation of ethical rules in at least California and perhaps other jurisdictions.
I don't know what is funnier: That Groupon is still around or that a Harvard (see diminished brands in the dictionary) professor bought one. He must have a timeshare, maybe two weeks in March, on Lake Winnipausaukee, in N.H. too.
GT:
I agree the professor did not sufficiently cover himself. Meanwhile others are arguing what they believe the law is. Give me a nickel and I will argue the law* - any law - three different ways.
*Not an offer for legal service or advice, just practicing the ol' First Amendment.
Does this thing revolve around the guy being an associate professor at Harvard?
No. It resolves around him being an asshole lawyer overreacting to an everyday, honest mistake.
At least twice.
"I'd tend to construe the text against its author."
Charmingly old fashioned. Construe text in favor of who you want to win would be more current.
Construe text in favor of who you want to win would be more current.
Heh.
Isn't this just another example of an organization using misleading advertising and bait and switch tactics, and then when caught, screams that they are being unfairly attacked?
Hot Air says: Sichuan noted the prices on the website were for a different location at which point Edelman demanded a 50% reduction in the bill.
I haven't seen anyone here noting what seems to me to be an important set of facts.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा