Harvard Business School professor threatens legal action against Chinese restaurant that overcharged him $4
Issues apology after dispute over his takeout order went viral
Last week, Ben Edelman, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, ordered takeout from a local Chinese restaurant.
Upon his return, Edelman discovered the restaurant, Sichuan Garden in Brookline, Mass., had overcharged him a total of $4 on his $53.35 order of shredded chicken with spicy garlic sauce, sautéed prawns with roasted chili and peanut, stir-fried chicken with spicy capsicum and braised fish filets and Napa cabbage with roasted chili.
Now most people in this situation might call the restaurant to point out the error, get a refund or future credit for takeout, or just swallow the $4. But Edelman, who received a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and a law degree from Harvard Law School, fired off a series of emails to the restaurant, threatening legal action and vowing to report the incident to the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Division.
Ran Duan, who helps his parents run the family-owned restaurant, explained the prices on their website were outdated.
"I apologize for the confusing [sic]," Duan wrote. "Our websites prices has been out of date for quite some time. I will male sure to update it, if you would like I can email you an updated menu."
"Thanks for the reply and for explaining what went wrong," Edelman, who admitted he "enjoyed the food," responded. "Under Massachusetts law, it turns out to be a serious violation to advertise one price and charge a different price. I urge you to cease this practice immediately. If you don't know how to update your web site, you could remove the web site altogether until you are able to correct the error."
Edelman continued:
In the interim, I suggest that Sichuan Garden refund me three times the amount of the overcharge. The tripling reflects the approach provided under the Massachusetts consumer protection statute, MGL 93a, wherein consumers broadly receive triple damages for certain intentional violations. Please refund the $12 to my credit card. Or you could mail a check for $12 to my home:
Ben Edelman
[ADDRESS REDACTED]
When Duan offered to refund Edelman the original overcharge, Edelman went into lawyerly overdrive:
It strikes me that merely providing a refund to a single customer would be an exceptionally light sanction for the violation that has occurred. To wit,, your restaurant overcharged all customers who viewed the web site and placed a telephone order — the standard and typical way to order takeout. You did so knowingly, knowing your web site was out of date and that consumers would see it and rely on it. You allowed the problem to continue, in your words, "for quite some time." You don't seem to recognize that this is a legal matter and calls for a more thoughtful and far-reaching resolution. Nor do you recognize the principle, well established in applicable laws, that when a business intentionally overcharges a customer, the business should suffer a penalty larger than the amount of the overcharge — a principle exactly intended to punish and deter violations.
I have already referred this matter to applicable authorities in order to attempt to compel your restaurant to identify all consumers affected and to provide refunds to all of them, or in any event to assure that an appropriate sanction is applied as provided by law.
Duan replied that he would wait to be contacted by those "applicable authorities," and that restuarant had updated its website as Edelman continued his barrage.
"Brookline consumer protection authorities told me that they couldn't assist because the restaurant had already ceased the false statements I flagged," Edelman wrote in an email to Yahoo News. "I thought they might want to arrange refunds to affected consumers, but they indicated that this is not their priority."
He told Boston.com he plans to take a few days before before deciding whether to pursue any further legal action.
“It certainly seems like a situation that could call for legal redress," Edelman said. "But this is a small business in the town where I reside.”
Wednesday afternoon, Edelman issued an apology on his website.
"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," he wrote. "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."
Meanwhile, the entire, three-day exchange has understandably gone viral.
