This is how I see it as well. The in store and take out menu’s have the correct pricing. I would guess it is a rather small percentage of customers that have ever looked at the website.
You can’t order through the website. Anyone ordering needs to call and is given the total before thier card is charged.
Yes the website should be updated. I think it’s very likely they do not have an in house website guy and it’s likely the manager of busy restaurant has more important fires to put out then an out of date website.
If there is evidence the pricing has been an issue for more than this one self important asshole I’d like to see it. I’d get behind being outraged at the restaurant if someone can demonstrate malicious intent.
I’ve eaten there. It was a typical Chinese food place, it’s not close by to me and wasn’t anything amazing so I doubt I’d eat there again.
You seem to have access to different evidence than I’ve seen. I haven’t seen that the website was managed by a third party. (most everyone’s website is HOSTED by a third party, but what matters is who is supposed to provide content. If that was some hard-to-reach third party, I’m more sympathetic.) The email exchange I saw was remarkable in that the initial response of the manager was just to say, “yeah, those prices are wrong. I’ll send you new prices”, without any offer to reimburse the difference. That seems like a giant red flag that the restaurant was interested neither in fixing the website nor in respecting its published prices. And I am curious what evidence you’ve seen that there was any effort to fix the website before the irate customer threatened legal action.
I think it’s a not-so-subtle plan to intentionally steal money from cost-sensitive internet shoppers. Or at best, a wanton indifference to honesty in advertising. Yeah, irate customer is a douchebag, but the restaurant is dishonest, and I would prefer to deal with neither of them.
For real? I wasn’t sure if that place was still around.
Doug K., the Globe reported that the restaurant owner had received an email or web site post from Edelman saying that the menu was no longer so slanty-eyed. A follow-up email or post apologized saying he was just joking around with students. Appears neither actually came from him or at least no one can prove it.
My own googling on this shows that in general there is no law that forces a business to honor advertised prices. I know that a Massachusetts law was cited in the email exchange, but so far I have not found any reference in Massachusetts law that describes what happened to Mr. Douchebag as “fraud” nor even as expressly illegal.
IIRC from several-deacdes-past classes, such a law would be difficult or impossible to enforce and could be disastrous for businesses. A typo could mean insolvency. Sudden scarcity could affect supply volumes and costs. There are many valid reasons that a price could change from the time the advertisement was commissioned until a specific person saw the advertisement.
Can anyone cite the MA law that Mr. Douchebag claims makes this an instance of fraud, or even anything illegal?
If a restaurant prints new menus with new prices, do you believe they are legally obligated to make sure that no one ever sees an out-of-date menu or else they are committing fraud?
ETA: How about last month’s newspaper advertisement, which reflects prices lower than the current market prices? Must they honor those prices or be guilty of fraud?
Also, could you please cite the law or laws that apply?
Of course not. Just like a cached, older version of a website shouldn’t be thought as reflecting the current prices. We are, of course, talking about a website that was active during the time of the transaction. That’s the equivalent of charging you for the menu that was offered to you at the table, or the newspaper ad from that same day.
I assume that Massachussets must have some regulations about false advertising. I’d think that those are everywhere in the world, even.
Thanks. It must not have fully loaded when I read it first. (Or I read it on some less complete site.) I only read up to the email right before that one. I’d seen some discussion of the request for half-price, and wondered about that, too.
I remain underwhelmed by the restaurant’s response to having a significant error pointed out. (nearly a 10% price difference that the owner seemed to think was kinda irrelevant – “here, I’ll send you a better menu”) But I’m feeling more sympathetic to them, and less to the customer having read the rest of the exchange.
I don’t know that it was “active”; I’m not even sure what that means “an active website”. I know that the website could be accessed, but if the content had not been changed in years, how is it “active”?
So you do think that the business is somehow obligated to ensure that customer never even sees an outdated price, or else they must honor it?
Do you have a cite for any law that supports your belief? Because I can’t find any. Not for Massachusetts or any other state or from the federal government.
I agree that Mr. Duan’s response was less than optimal at each stage of the exchange, but Mr. Douchebag’s continually escalating threats were way more offensive and out of proportion than Mr. Duan’s seeming lack of groveling and debasing himself warranted.
For the record, I consider the $3 offer a typo, not a deliberate slight. I’m charitable like that, I guess.
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.
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.
I’d like to see a decent link from the googling you did. I am surprised that this wouldn’t fall squarely under contract law.
As this seems to be the consensus, let me push at it a little. I think Edelman was performing a public service. His alleged error was bargaining for $12 rather than $4 after the first email exchange, rather than going to the authorities.
But 1) this was a bargaining position and in the 2nd round you are in the realm of bargaining, 2) the potential losses from official action are way more than $8 (=12-4=punitive damages essentially), 3) arguably not wasting the time of consumer affairs makes some sense, provided the online menu gets updated within the week.
Yeah the public optics aren’t too great but let’s remember that Edelman didn’t necessarily anticipate the publication of these emails. I’d trade “Douchebag” for “Miscalculated and acted like a bit of a dick”. But the social benefits of not allowing these ripoffs to occur are substantial in my view. The restaurant industry is competitive and corruption needs to be repressed.
More generally, when confronted by a ripoff I make a calculation about whether I want to make a project out of the situation or not. Sometimes I say yes, sometimes no. Caveat vendit!
Seriously? You want people to go to the authorities because a website had a price that was older than the in-store menus? Do you also go to the police when a vending machine eats a quarter or when the portion of food you get wasn’t as big as the picture on the menu.
Calling a failure to update an online menu a “ripoff” and even considering going to “the authorities” over this is distressing to anyone who wants to think that America isn’t full of a bunch of reactionary, drama queen whiners.
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.
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.
Given the immensity of some of the actions that would be covered by these consumer protection agencies, and their consistent problems obtaining funding, you want them to chase down and investigate a $1 difference between an online menu and the regular store menu?
Multiple items on one fucking menu. An out of date menu.
“Perp”?
Really?
You gotta be trolling me with that, right? “Perp” because a guy didn’t update his online menu?
No it implies that the entire menu consisted of more than one thing. That’s all it implies.
“Crime”?
Damn, I really think I’ve been whooshed. Well played, Measure for Measure. Well played.
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.
Isn’t the restaurant wrong regardless? Either ‘honestly’ or not, they were advertising one set of prices, charging another–they were in the wrong before the lawyer came into it.
I googled “does a business have to honor an advertised price”. I went thru quite a few links, omitting the ones from the UK, and all of them said the same thing: No, a business is not legally obligated to honor an advertised price. It has always been my understanding that this is the case, which is why I was gobsmacked when he said that Massachusetts has such a law. I also noticed that although he pointed out the statute he believed was relevant to his getting 3x his money back, he did not reference the statute that obligates a merchant to honor an advertised price.
My search has turned up fruitless, so I see no reason to discontinue thinking that such a law does not exist. I welcome a correction, should anyone find contrary information.