# It's not the money, it's the principle! No, it's the money **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 10, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866 "2014-12-10T18:36:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/101 "2014-12-12T03:51:04Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > This could have been a multi-thousand dollar rip-off. Yeah, state consumer protection agencies should be involved under such circumstances. (A comparison with the web and restaurant price sheets would reveal the scale of this problem.) > > We know it wasn’t just one item. One item could be a mistake. It was multiple items. The perp also showed no inclination to correct the the web list. That implies intent. I have evidence that Mr. Duan, who by the way is not a “perp”, was inclined “to correct the web list”, as you put it. In fact, I pointed it out to **puzzlegal** a few posts ago because she had missed that part of the email exchange. What evidence do you have that Mr. Duan “showed no inclination to correct the web list”? Do you know he never before contacted the people who created and maintained his website? You have his phone records and emails and there is an absence of such communication? Do you have any evidence at all, other than the fact that the web page was outdated? :dubious: > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Look. It’s not hard. Don’t play bait and switch. If you agree to sell something for a given price, honor your commitment. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. Look. It’s not hard. Don’t use phrases that you don’t fully know the meanings of: this was not a bait and switch, nor, as far as I can tell, has any crime been committed. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/102 "2014-12-12T03:59:38Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > No, there is a legitimate expectation that the prices advertised in the website of a business reflect the current prices, therefore they can’t be considered outdated. I agree that that is a legitimate expectation, but expectations don’t really mean squat. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/103 "2014-12-12T04:00:18Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > You gotta be trolling me with that, right? “Perp” because a guy didn’t update his online menu? Well yeah, I decided to break into [Joe Friday](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Friday) mode. Also, “Bookem Danno” is from _Hawaii 5-0_ and it was a line generally delivered before “Murder One”. This case is _somewhat_ less serious. All the same, recognize that state consumer protection agencies tend to be underfunded and use kid gloves. So we shouldn’t freak out at that possibility either. The perp (ha!) would probably be able to claim first offense and get off with a warning, possibly unofficial. Maybe he’d be slapped around in a back room a little. (I kid.) Look, we’re approaching a 10% discrepancy here, boosted with tax and tip. Business standards that don’t get enforced tend to fall away. So yeah, this problem needs to be addressed. Realize that most businesses would have fixed the problem upon first notification. This guy did not. Oh yeah, Edelman isn’t necessarily a miser. It’s pretty clear that he’s a self appointed enforcer of some sort: he does this sort of thing with big companies as well. So do I [in my own way](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=701775). Snowboarder Bo: Thanks. Here’s what I found at the FTC website: [INDENT]Pricing \*\*Are there any standards governing the advertising of prices? \*\* The same standards for truthfulness apply when companies make claims about price comparisons, “sale” prices, and the like. For more information, ask the FTC for the Guides Against Deceptive Pricing. Since many pricing issues involve local practices, you also may want to contact the Attorney General’s office in the state(s) where you plan to advertise. \*\*What responsibility does a company have to make sure that prices are accurate? \*\* In many jurisdictions, companies are legally required to charge no more than the advertised or shelf price for a product, so good pricing practices are important for both customer satisfaction and a company’s bottom line. For tips on accurate pricing practices in advertising and in retail stores, ask the FTC for Good Pricing Practices? SCAN DO. [/INDENT] By my reading if there is systematic mispricing, the FTC might be interested. But at a restaurant, it would be mostly a matter for state law. Which implies an even thinner internet trial. I suspect there are few enforcement actions, as most businesses don’t like irritating their customers and having to explain themselves. Bait and switch is another category though: that’s a more common concern. But again: my WAG. ETA: Cross post! ETA2: Leaffan: It’s not just $4 because Edelman almost surely wasn’t the only person scammed. ETA3: Perp stands for perpetrator. Technically accurate! ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/104 "2014-12-12T04:01:25Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Look. It’s not hard. Don’t use phrases that you don’t fully know the meanings of: Upon rereading, this was unnecessarily snarky and I apologize, **MfM**. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/105 "2014-12-12T04:02:52Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Some websites have a “prices subject to change without notice” disclaimer. I wonder if that would have been sufficient to protect somebody (from anything legal, I mean- assholery can’t be guarded against). > > I understand his initial irritation. I went to a local Korean place a few months ago and when they brought the bill I gave a coupon they’d printed in the newspaper that read “$2.50 off per person/up to 4 people”. > > The waitress, who spoke about 9 words of English (and I’m not sure she spoke any more in Korean), told me “This for four peepa. You just one.” > > I showed her “UP TO Four People” and she nodded in vigorous purposeless nodding and said “Yes, four peepa, you one.” > > Okay, I thought, she doesn’t understand. Language barrier, fair enough. The hostess when I came in seemed fluent, so I went to see her, and sure enough her English was good and she told me “You have to see the manager”. > > I’m not sure the manager spoke any English but just parroted the waitress: “Four peepa, you one, one two tee four peepa! Not one!” > > I was furious, and it really was the principal and not the $2.50. I haven’t been back to the restaurant and I’ve told everybody who mentioned the place. Had Edelman just gotten pissed at this, he’d have had my sympathy and those of many other people who get pissed at such micro irritations but don’t find them worth the energy and blood pressure elevation, but, being an asshole he has to go the extra few inches of colon and shift sympathies. Thank you, Sampiro. As usual you have articulated what I felt and could not find words for. Restaurant? Bag of dicks. Seriously. Their first response was NOT to refund. Law prof? Also bag of dicks, impossible to sympathize with jackass. But right. And actually looking out for you and me, were we to be customers of take-out Chinese in Boston. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/106 "2014-12-12T04:09:35Z")
The funniest part, to me, is that if it were WalMart overcharging customers, you’d all have the pitchforks at the ready. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/107 "2014-12-12T04:15:47Z")
On the matter of “out of date website” My company designs, manages and provides content for websites (I’m in content, not design) Really - from what I see everyday, the idea of an out of date website is really common, as is the idea that they will have to go to someone else to get it updated. And for many - they only have a website “just because it is expected” - rather than for any real business reasons. That said - it seems like pretty poor website design in this instance - it’s really not hard a design consultant to foresee this sort of problem - and provide a range of solutions this would naturally include a) A disclaimer at the the top of the page re accuracy of pricing (not hidden in the t and c) b) A CMS to allow the restaurant to upload a PDF of current pricing c) A download menu item - with a CMS allowing the restaurant to easily and quickly update the file ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/108 "2014-12-12T04:19:23Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I have evidence that Mr. Duan, who by the way is not a “perp”, was inclined “to correct the web list”, as you put it. In fact, I pointed it out to **puzzlegal** a few posts ago because she had missed that part of the email exchange. > > What evidence do you have that Mr. Duan “showed no inclination to correct the web list”? Do you know he never before contacted the people who created and maintained his website? You have his phone records and emails and there is an absence of such communication? Do you have any evidence at all, other than the fact that the web page was outdated? :dubious: “Showed no interest prior to his third email”, then. Shoulda been his first, definitely his second. To be clear though, it’s good that this wasn’t taken to the enforcement level; I don’t want to leave the impression that agency involvement would be the best outcome. Typically merchants and customers sensibly settle before that point. As they should, IMHO. While I’m here, I’d also like to concede (following Joey P’s post) that in most customer - retail disputes, the customer is being more of a dick. IMHO, from what I’ve observed in stores as a shopper. > [@](#): > > Upon rereading, this was unnecessarily snarky and I apologize, MfM. No worries, and I thought it was fine in this forum. D’Anconia: Funny you should say that. I caught Walgreens (different company, same prefix) screwing up prices constantly years ago. I arranged for refunds more times that I’d like to admit, given the small amounts and 10-15 minutes involved. That behavior of their’s was disturbingly systematic. Perhaps that colored my response here. I ended up shifting my business elsewhere for a spell. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/109 "2014-12-12T04:28:19Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > The funniest part, to me, is that if it were WalMart overcharging customers, you’d all have the pitchforks at the ready. Walmart isn’t a small mom and pop operation; it would be expected that their website would be current. But what if they had a bottle of shampoo on their website for $5.99 and when you got the the store it was $6.99? The Walmart lawyers would eat your lunch if you tried to sue over that. Some of the responses in this thread are hilarious and really accentuate the litigious and confrontational attitudes of a lot of US citizens. It’s really sad actually. I can’t speak for the rest of the planet, but holy shit, it’s only a few bucks due to a website that (admittedly) wasn’t updated. Get over it. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/110 "2014-12-12T04:34:26Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > “Showed no interest prior to his third email”, then. Shoulda been his first, definitely his second. > > To be clear though, it’s good that this wasn’t taken to the enforcement level; I don’t want to leave the impression that agency involvement would be the best outcome. Typically merchants and customers sensibly settle before that point. As they should, IMHO. Aye, I’ve said that I didn’t think Mr. Duan’s handling of the situation was at all optimal. My first reply to the customer would have been “I’m sorry that those prices are out of date. I found your receipt and refunded the $4 to your credit card. Please accept this ‘buy 1 get 2’ coupon for your next visit, good for your entire meal. At Sichuan Garden we value our customers highly and are taking steps to ensure that our site is updated as soon as possible. Thank you for drawing this to our attention and for your understanding.” Really, most people don’t just want to be dicks. And most people are actually pretty honest. Both parties in this case kinda missed their mark, tho. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/111 "2014-12-12T04:56:14Z")
> [@jimbuff314](#): > > How unfortunate for you that you’re someone who apparently wants to think that, 'cause … look around. > > I’ve looked at Massachusetts General Law 93a. It refers to unlawful trade practices as those being set forth in the FTCA 5(a)(1). In section 11, it provides for no less than double and up to treble the damages. I’m not yet willing to root around in the FTCA to see if advertising one price and charging another falls under the rubric of “unfair trade practices” or not, but if I get a little more RO cranked up, who knows? Seems likely that it’s in there, anyhow. It isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/112 "2014-12-12T06:19:23Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > The funniest part, to me, is that if it were WalMart overcharging customers, you’d all have the pitchforks at the ready. If it were Walmarts website it would actually have the potential to scam people. You can buy things on [walmart.com](http://walmart.com) So if it said my widget was 4 dollars and charged me 5 It would be actual fraud. The restaurants website had no shopping cart function. It had no ability to overcharge or undercharge as it didn’t charge at all. It was essentially a picture of a old menu. Anyone wishing to make a purchase would have to contact the restaurant by phone or go in person, in which case they’d have ample opportunity to be informed of what the actual costs would be before paying. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/113 "2014-12-12T06:52:30Z")
In other words, it was an advertisement. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/114 "2014-12-12T06:53:40Z")
I, for one, am convinced that neither the restaurant owner nor Mr. Edelman would [move their asses from an unassigned movie theater seat](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=679213), even if asked nicely. IOW, the smaller the offense, the more recreational the outrage. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![jimbuff314](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c57346/32.png) [@jimbuff314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimbuff314)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/115 "2014-12-12T09:41:13Z")
And on that note : > [@](#): > > Section 2. (a) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. > (b) It is the intent of the legislature that in construing paragraph (a) of this section in actions brought under sections four, nine and eleven, the courts will be guided by the interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Courts to section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)), as from time to time amended. > (c) The attorney general may make rules and regulations interpreting the provisions of subsection 2(a) of this chapter. Such rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with the rules, regulations and decisions of the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Courts interpreting the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1) (The Federal Trade Commission Act), as from time to time amended. From [MGL 93a](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter93A/Section2). (Massachusetts General Law) And turning to the FTCA : > [@](#): > > Deceptive acts or practices > An act or practice is deceptive if it involves a representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances, and the representation, omission, or practice is material.[2] > > The FTC Policy Statement on Deception[3] states that the Commission analyzes deceptive business practices under the following rubric: > > There must be a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer. This includes the “use of bait and switch techniques.”[4] > The practice is examined from the perspective of a reasonable person in the circumstances. If the practice “is directed primarily to a particular group,” such as Internet users, “the Commission examines reasonableness from the perspective of that group.”[5] > _**The representation, omission or practice must be a material one, i.e., it is likely to affect the consumer’s conduct or decision regarding the produce or service.[6] > Thus, an advertisement is deceptive if it includes material information that is false or that is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances**_. Likewise, an advertisement is deceptive if it omits material information, and that omission is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.[7] Requiring accurate disclosure of material terms allows consumers to compare similar services offered by one or multiple providers and weigh the different terms being offered in making decisions about what services to purchase. From the [IT Law Wiki](http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Section_5_of_the_FTC_Act). Insert Latin phrase of your choice indicating triumph. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/116 "2014-12-12T10:57:54Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > In other words, it was an advertisement. The fact that it is an advertisement (with which I fully agree) is not controlling. An advertisement is not binding on a merchant, but that doesn’t mean a merchant has no duty to advise its customers that it is not honoring a posted price. If I see an ad for a $500 Ford, and go to the Ford dealer, they are free to tell me they are not actually selling any Fords for $500. That’s _their job_, though. The law doesn’t allow them to quietly sell me a Ford for $600 and hope I don’t notice. Edelman is absolutely in the right here. A dick, sure, but a correct dick. This narrative that the restaurant is some kind of “mom and pop” affair run by pitiful immigrants is (1) inaccurate (they have at least three locations, and quick access to attorneys specializing in commercial law), and (2) irrelevant. They fucked up, and in the process undoubtedly fucked _over_ lots of people who were also fooled. If you can’t keep your commercial website updated, don’t have a website - or make sure you tell your customers it’s inaccurate. Would I have done this? No, because I don’t fuck with people who fuck with my food, and $4 isn’t worth getting upset about - but I’m glad he did. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/117 "2014-12-12T11:37:37Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > If I see an ad for a $500 Ford, and go to the Ford dealer, they are free to tell me they are not actually selling any Fords for $500. That’s _their job_, though. The law doesn’t allow them to quietly sell me a Ford for $600 and hope I don’t notice How would they do that? You go into the dealership because you saw an advertisement for a 500 dollar ford pinto. You say I want to buy a Ford pinto. They say sure that will be 600 bucks. That’s where this should have stopped. You have the option of not buying the car because it isn’t the 500 dollars you were expecting. It’s certainly shitty customer service on the restaurants part. They should have been on top of the issue and if it actually fell through the cracks they should have offered better compensation than honoring the outdated prices. Mr duchebag however paid the 600 bucks either because he was looking to make an issue of it or he didn’t actually remember the advertisement said 500, he drove it home then went on to try and extort money from the dealership by missrepresenting law he is highly qualified in. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/118 "2014-12-12T11:51:10Z")
Their website has a disclaimer at the top that says “menus and prices may vary by location.” The prick who tried to bully them into giving him his food for half price under legal threats (before backing down and dropping the matter and apologizing) seemed to have originally been working on a theory that this disclaimer was not valid. He said he thought this was the case because the owner told him the prices had been out of date for ‘quite some time’ in an email. From that, he was making the leap that it proved the owner knew the prices were out of date for quite some time and took no steps to change it. But in court it could have come out that the owner only realized it at the moment of this complaint, and upon realizing it, also realized that it had been that way for quite some time. Is there a legal definition for how much time “quite some time” is, and if so, is there a limit on how much time a menu item can be out of date before the disclaimer stating that prices may vary is no longer any protection? If you search Google for “menu disclaimer” or “prices may vary” etc. you will find millions of results, many of which are restaurants with online menus that may be subject to change and may not reflect the actual prices of the menu items. Are the legal counselors of all of these millions of restaurants operating under a misconception? I am not a lawyer but I don’t think his theory was ironclad. In court, their website menu disclaimer may have protected them. He not only would have not gotten his $12 and half-price food, he might have been paying their court costs and legal bills, which aren’t free for them like they are for him. As for the restaurant, judging by reaction on their[facebook page](https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sichuan-Garden-II-at-The-Baldwin/111723842196129) they have seen quite an outpouring of support and have gained a lot of new customers over this story. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/119 "2014-12-12T12:22:32Z")
[Ben Edelman has apologized for being a douche.](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/12/10/ben-edelman-sorry/KHSxhY6GiT4EgYd4GefEGL/story.html?p1=Topofpage:Carousel_lead_linklist&p1=related_article_page) > [@](#): > > Many people have seen my emails with Ran Duan of Sichuan Garden restaurant in Brookline. Having reflected on my interaction with Ran, including what I said and how I said it, it’s clear that I was very much out of line. I aspire to act with great respect and humility in dealing with others, no matter what the situation. Clearly I failed to do so. I am sorry, and I intend to do better in the future. I have reached out to Ran and will apologize to him personally as well. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2014, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866/120 "2014-12-12T12:38:36Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Their website has a disclaimer at the top that says “menus and prices may vary by location.” Did it say that before they updated it, or after? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-money-its-the-principle-no-its-the-money/706866.md?page=7)