用户注册 登录
珍珠湾全球网 返回首页

中西部网客的个人空间 http://zzwave.com/?204 [收藏] [复制] [分享] [RSS]

日志

如果哈佛教授真诉中餐馆,

热度 2已有 8263 次阅读2014-12-14 05:57 |系统分类:转帖--非原创请选择| 高利贷, 犹太人, 大富豪, 哈佛, 历史

老牛把哈佛教授当成神一样,却毫无证据地把老中污蔑成刁民,实在是有洋奴倾向。此哈佛教授看起来就是一讼棍,有报道此教授虽是大富豪,多年来却为小事多次诉讼威胁诉讼已是劣迹斑斑,也难怪,教授是犹太人,犹太人吝啬出名,历史上开珠宝店放高利贷恶名昭彰。

哈佛教授要是真诉中餐馆,很可能输掉官司。

What happens if you sue a restaurant over $4? By Andy Rose


The Boston Globe

One takeaway from the firestorm over a Harvard professor’s claim that a Chinese restaurant overcharged him by $4: Don’t mess with the Massachusetts consumer.

The Commonwealth has some of the nation’s toughest consumer protection laws, and in some cases merchants can be forced to pay back three times what they overcharged. They can also face state lawsuits and civil penalties in the thousands of dollars.

Associate business professor Benjamin Edelman raised the specter of that Draconian enforcement as he grilled a manager at Sichuan Garden in Brookline about why the prices reflected on an online menu didn’t match up with what he paid.

He wanted $12 to compensate him for the $4 difference.

But experts in consumer protection said that even with the muscular state protections for buyers, Edelman would have had a hard time making this case. He would have had to go to court, for one thing, then prove that Sichuan Garden overcharged him on purpose.

Kathleen C. Engel, a research professor of law at Suffolk University, said Edelman’s case would have also been weakened by the fact that the restaurant offered to compensate him for the price difference.

Courts take such offers into consideration when making decisions about whether to penalize sellers in consumer protection cases. And some say that detail would likely mean Edelman had no case for triple (some say “treble”) damages.

Engel said that even without such an offer, Edelman would have had to prove that “the defendant had that menu posted on the web knowing that they were violating the law.”

Four dollars doesn’t seem like much, but small overcharges can make a big difference if they’re repeated many times. Sometimes, the state will take up a case.

Barbara Anthony, undersecretary of the state Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, said the attorney general’s office might get involved if it becomes obvious that there’s a pattern of abuse by a company.

Individual cases usually only rise to state action if they’re extremely egregious, or if they involve the abuse of seniors or children.

Christopher Loh, a spokesman for Attorney General Martha Coakley, said the Sichuan Garden incident isn’t the type of case his office takes up.

“Our office enforces cases of deceptive advertising such as our actions against some auto retailers, though the vast majority of individual disputes are resolved through mediation,” he said in a statement. “This is not a case that would be enforced by our office.”

Coakley’s office hasn’t gotten any complaints against the restaurant in the past five years.

Nonetheless, Edgar Dworsky, founder of the website Consumer World, said he believes Edelman’s heart was in the right place.

“My sense is that Prof. Edelman has been [subject] to undue ridicule in how the story has been reported, and in comments posted by the public,” Dworsky wrote in an e-mail. “There is an old consumer saying: It is easier to steal a dollar from a million people than a million dollars from one person.”

Engel, of Suffolk University, said she would have preferred to see Edelman’s consumer protection expertise brought to bear on a larger topic — predatory mortgage lending, for instance.

Still, she said his choice to come out swinging in his letter to the restaurant isn’t such an unusual negotiating technique.

“Given that the potential plaintiff doesn’t know what the [merchant] knew, there’s nothing wrong with saying, ‘ “I want to pursue treble damages.’ ”


Last but not least, 湾民们等老牛诉汗衫同学 knowingly, intentionally, willfully, maliciously 侵权,老牛普法,湾民看戏。


路过

鸡蛋

鲜花

支持

雷人

难过

搞笑
 

发表评论 评论 (5 个评论)

回复 Chi202 2014-12-14 08:02
Apologetic Harvard prof had another food fight: Reporthttp://www.cnbc.com/id/102259845
回复 Chi202 2014-12-14 08:07
"Edelman:

The way you've treated this restaurant is, in the eyes of the public, orders of magnitude worse than any infraction an outdated menu represents.

You think you are doing everyone a favor by harassing these restaurant owners, figuring this way all menus will be up-to-date.

But everyone else is just thinking what an asshole you are. No one will support you, even if your accusations are right, because we all prefer to stand by good people who make small mistakes—news flash, we all do, so you can sue us all—than to stand by a self-righteous lawyer going after a breadcrumb of an infraction.

Really, Edelman—what you are doing is just not cool. At all."
回复 中西部网客 2014-12-14 08:42
Chi202: "Edelman:

The way you've treated this restaurant is, in the eyes of the public, orders of magnitude worse than any infraction an outdated menu r ...
此教授应该来说就是 Cheap,用威胁诉讼作为手段贪小便宜,他根本没权力要求三倍的赔偿,他只有要求退还4元差价的权力,只有法庭才能判决是否三倍赔偿,美国教授 Kathleen C. Engel 不愿直接说Benjamin Edelman "Cheap",而是把 Benjamin Edelman 的威胁诉讼手段要求赔12元调侃为"negotiating technique" 。 这教授是自作自受,self-inflicted humiliation - 自取其辱。
回复 Chi202 2014-12-14 09:01
中西部网客: 此教授应该来说就是 Cheap,用威胁诉讼作为手段贪小便宜,他根本没权力要求三倍的赔偿,他只有要求退还4元差价的权力,只有法庭才能判决是否三倍赔偿,美国教授 ...
如果在餐馆里的菜单列出了正确的价格, 网站上的价格应该不是故意欺骗!
我认为店主的态度还是好的!
回复 岳东晓 2014-12-14 12:09
你跟着洋人的媒体起哄,毫无基本的正义感、蓄意忽略事实,你不是洋奴就是被洋人媒体洗脑。

而我反对这个涉嫌虚假广告、而去抹黑顾客的刁民,却是维护社会公义。

我没根据还是你不诚实?

根据这个报道,这家餐馆有两个分店,之前被两家洋人媒体报道过,可见其老板与媒体并不陌生。最后餐馆老板的选择是把教授与餐馆 EMAIL 往来交给洋人媒体。该餐馆老板向洋人记者哭诉到【我工作这么辛苦,让家庭感到骄傲、让生意更好。这件事让我心都碎了。】(“I have worked so hard to make my family proud and to elevate our business. It just broke my heart.”)  这种悲情牌显然触发了美国民众对弱者的同情心与对哈佛教授的憎恶。

其实你稍微分析一下就知道,这人开了两家餐馆,跟洋人媒体颇有往来,一件$12 的纠纷还能咨询法律顾问,从各方面并不是弱势;而教授仅仅是一个餐馆的食客。多收费、获利的是餐馆,餐馆老板一分钱没退,却装成受害者,号称心都碎了。广告价与实际价格不一,确实可能违法,本来可以退回12美金,并向教授表示歉意与感谢,但餐馆却公开与顾客之间的私人通讯,在媒体上抹黑其顾客,明显利用了顾客是哈佛教授、名誉很重要这样一个弱点。餐馆的行为是典型的刁民行径。

如果你是有一定身份或者一定隐私的人物,以后你敢去这餐馆就餐吗?把你利用曝光一下,你怎么办?


我免费给你这无知+法盲法律教育,可能胜过你读几年书,你不感谢至少也不应该像某些我亲手教育的法盲一样 displaying ingratitude 吧。 You are biting the hand that fed you.   

你提出的每一点都被简单驳倒,体现你法盲+无知,最后你也就只能抛出媒体引导的舆论作为你的辩解--- 不过是被简单洗脑而已     。可悲。你就不能有点独立思考能力,有点基本的是非观念?

【很多中国人对涉及自身个人利益的事情往往是知道极力维护的,自己遇到餐馆多收几块钱,说不定啰嗦半天。有些人不管自己的索求是否站得住脚,到处求爷爷告奶奶跪求帮助,但一旦遇到其他人或者群体的事情就立刻摆出一副伪善的宽容的脸孔,甚至反过来指责利益被损害者,完全没有基本的正义感与是非观念。】

http://www.zhenzhubay.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=2&do=blog&id=27430

facelist

您需要登录后才可以评论 登录 | 用户注册

Archiver|手机版|珍珠湾全球网

GMT+8, 2021-4-22 22:53 , Processed in 0.026465 second(s), 10 queries , Apc On.

Powered by Discuz! X2.5

回顶部