Ben Edelman, Harvard Business School Professor, Goes to War Over $4 Worth of Chinese Food

[Senpie]

[

Ben Edelman (left) and Ran Duan (right)
 

By Hilary Sargent
Boston.com Staff | 12.09.14 | 3:28 PM

Ben Edelman is an associate professor at Harvard Business School, where he teaches in the Negotiation, Organizations & Markets unit.
Ran Duan manages The Baldwin Bar, located inside the Woburn location of Sichuan Garden, a Chinese restaurant founded by his parents.


Last week, Edelman ordered what he thought was $53.35 worth of Chinese food fromSichuan Garden’s Brookline Village location.
Edelman soon came to the horrifying realization that he had been overcharged. By a total of $4.
If you’ve ever wondered what happens when a Harvard Business School professor thinks a family-run Chinese restaurant screwed him out of $4, you’re about to find out.
 
(Hint: It involves invocation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Statute and multiple threats of legal action.)
 

 

 
Surprised yet? We were, too.
In addition to teaching at HBS, Edelman also operates a consulting practice where he advises clients like Microsoft, the NFL, the New York Times, and Universal Music on “preventing and detecting online fraud (especially advertising fraud).†(That’s from Edelman’s own website, which it seems safe to presume is always kept up to date.)
He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College. He has a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University, and a law degree from Harvard Law School.
Ran Duan moved to the U.S. from China when he was 3-years-old. His father had hoped to support the family with a career as an opera singer, but when that didn’t pan out, Duan says “like all Chinese families we decided to open up a restaurant.â€
Sichuan Garden opened its doors in Brookline in the early 1990s. A second location followed in Woburn.
Despite the restaurant’s successful expansion, Duan admittted that Sichuan does not have the budget for teams devoted to public relations or a website that is updated as regularly as it should be.
 


Screenshot of Sichuan Garden’s website as of December 9.
 

 
“I personally respond to every complaint and try to handle every situation personally,†said Duan, who was profiled by Boston Magazine in June and featured in GQ Magazine last month as â€œAmerica’s Most Imaginative Bartender.â€
The exchange with Edelman stood out to Duan. “I have worked so hard to make my family proud and to elevate our business. It just broke my heart.â€
Edelman told Boston.com that investigating pricing discrepancies by neighborhood restaurants isn’t something he does every day.
“I mostly look for malfeasance by larger companies,†he said. “It certainly seems like a situation that could call for legal redress. But this is a small business in the town where I reside.â€
As for the troves of angry customers likely looking for recourse? Edelman pointed Boston.com to Massachusetts General Law, Section XV, Chapter 93A, Section 9. (Translation: If you didn’t pass the Massachusetts bar, but still feel as though you must do SOMETHING, then just gather all the receipts you’ve saved, along with all screenshots you took and saved of the website menu in case that dinner order ever ended up in court, find a lawyer whose fees aren’t likely to exceed the few dollars you’re seeking, and ... voila?)
As for Edelman, he alerted town officials in Brookline about the matter, but told Boston.com he doesn’t expect them to take action. He plans to “take a few days†before deciding whether to pursue any further legal action against the restaurant.
Oh and the food? Edelman admitted: “It was delicious.â€
 
Source: boston.com

 

 

 

___________________________________________________________

 

Thoughts?

 

Do you think he was just trying to be a bully, invoking the law to appear as arcane as possible and bully the store?

 

Also, whether the higher people in positions of power get, the more self-entitled they become?

 

I heard America was super sue happy. But this takes the cake for being technically right, but a huge dick move and blowing a little issue completely out of proportion.

 

Yeah, he wasn't wrong. But he should have just accepted the refund, and the site promised they'd update prices on it. 

[Gloupsidou]

The restaurant wanted to give him a refund jfc he needs to chill

[jadakiss13]

To you it may seem like a little issue, but even if this is a mom and pop restaurant, they could have hundreds of clients a day. Lets say they have 200 clients a day, 50% order through their online service. Then lets say that each person orders four items with the added $1 extra on every item, that would be $400 a day. The restaurant owner said the site has been like that "for quite some time". Does quite some time mean 6 months, 1 year, 2 years. If so, then $400 a day by 365 days (1 year) thats $146,000 for a year. That is major fraud. 

 

Yes the US may have a lot of frivolous law suits but this does not seem the case here. You have to think about it in the bigger schemes of things. If a company pockets $146,000 extra per year, simply due to failure to update their site, it's a serious issue. 

[aimeele]

He wasn't wrong. The owner should refund his money and update the website as soon as possible.

[Senpie]

To you it may seem like a little issue, but even if this is a mom and pop restaurant, they could have hundreds of clients a day. Lets say they have 200 clients a day, 50% order through their online service. Then lets say that each person orders four items with the added $1 extra on every item, that would be $400 a day. The restaurant owner said the site has been like that "for quite some time". Does quite some time mean 6 months, 1 year, 2 years. If so, then $400 a day by 365 days (1 year) thats $146,000 for a year. That is major fraud. 

 

Yes the US may have a lot of frivolous law suits but this does not seem the case here. You have to think about it in the bigger schemes of things. If a company pockets $146,000 extra per year, simply due to failure to update their site, it's a serious issue. 

Fair points.

 

But he was willing to, in principle, get three times what he was overcharged ($12) and drop the issue. Doesn't seem like he was fighting for justice, tbh. Just bullying.

 

When the professor didn't get his way and the "refund", he made the issue into a one invoking general fraud, etc.

 

That's how i see it anyway, as extremely reactionary rather than being for "the people"/fighting against fraud from the start.

 

Also, i don't believe the store has an online website/ordering service. The price lists seem to reflect a general guide. I checked the links (yelp), and it seems like they don't do delivery, i.e. probably no preordering.

[mblaq506]

He wasn't wrong, but he took it too far imo. He could have just taken the $4 refund and the owner could avoid all this by updating his website. 

[barrio baby]

fuckin uptight rich white people 

 

kill them off. every single one of them

[jadakiss13]

Fair points.

 

But he was willing to, in principle, get three times what he was overcharged ($12) and drop the issue. Doesn't seem like he was fighting for justice, tbh. Just bullying.

 

When the professor didn't get his way and the "refund", he made the issue into a one invoking general fraud, etc.

 

That's how i see it anyway, as extremely reactionary rather than being for "the people"/fighting against fraud from the start.

 

Also, i don't believe the store has an online website/ordering service. The price lists seem to reflect a general guide. I checked the links (yelp), and it seems like they don't do delivery, i.e. probably no preordering.

I don't think it was bullying though. As a customer and consumer you do have the right to be refunded and to also contact proper authorities whether its the BBB or your states own business governing departments.

 

If you look at the date and time of the email, he contacted authorities the following day when he realized that he was not the only person that may have been overcharged, time and again. Many people do not check their receipts or compare them to their bank statements so they never see these discrepancies. 

 

Also since the professor, works specifically in fraud he has a clear understanding of just how much money can be made even from small "mom and pop" restaurants even if it's just $1 by $1. The issue at hand though, is that the owner new about the site and was willing to keep it as it was "for some time." Which now makes it intentional fraud. 

 

The store does not need to have its own site but a lot of small mom and pops now work with company's like Grubhub, Eat24, Seamless and so on. It is the responsibility of the restaurant to provide the site with the correct prices, since the site is simply a middleman. 

[PShell]

He is completely correct with his handling

 

It's bullshit to have a menu online that has lower prices than what you charge, especially if you are doing delivery. 

 

They are ripping off a ton more people than this one guy.  Professor is doing the correct job.  You notice he threatened the action and didn't hire a bunch of lawyers?  He was doing this the proper way and the restaurant is completely out of line.

 

Just because he is a professor or whatever doesn't mean he can't complain about shady business practices.

 

 

 

reported

 

I understand most of Onehallyu is of questionable logic on cases like this but understand this.  In Business you don't like people get away with little "accidents" that benefit themselves.  If these consumer protection practices didn't exist you would get all sorts of fraud and "oops we meant the charge was $50 instead of $45." going on. 

 

While it might have been an accident that is not good enough for a business.  You need your advertisements to be accurate and exact as to the price etc that you charge for the protection of the consumer. 

 

If this was just a friendly thing or informal transaction it could be accepted but you really can not let businesses get away with slightly misleading prices whether it's on accident or not.  The thing is he does not know this man or the business; they could just as easily be doing this on purpose to skim extra profits off consumers as it being an accident.

 

If they do change the prices, it's up to them to update it not up to the consumers to pay extra after the fact on misleading prices.

[hess]

They probably just forgot to update the website or didn't have the time/money to do it. Even it's technically "intentional fraud" due to the fact that they knew it was out of date, doesn't seem likely to me that they had the ill intention of purposefully screwing people out of an extra $1 for every dish they ordered. I think the lawyer was right to bring it up with the restaurant, but he takes it too far and comes off as a huge ass in his emails. Working in law and knowing about all the shady business practices probably made him overly aggressive in trying to resolve these issues.

[Pineapple]

I don't think Edelman was in the wrong for contacting the business owner about his concerns, and asking for a refund. I do, however, think it was a dick move to escalate the situation the way he did. This doesn't come across as justice to me, but tying up a small business that already has to compete with chain restaurants in an unnecessary legal matter when they were receptive to changing their menu, and issuing him the refund he was seeking. 

[PShell]

They probably just forgot to update the website or didn't have the time/money to do it. Even it's technically "intentional fraud" due to the fact that they knew it was out of date, doesn't seem likely to me that they had the ill intention of purposefully screwing people out of an extra $1 for every dish they ordered. I think the lawyer was right to bring it up with the restaurant, but he takes it too far and comes off as a huge ass in his emails. Working in law and knowing about all the shady business practices probably made him overly aggressive in trying to resolve these issues.

Maybe

 

The key thing is

 

1.  They advertised a price

2.  They charge more on the receipt

 

That's fraud.  So regardless if the guy is the biggest asshole in the world the restaurant is still at fault and needs to fix their shit because they are ripping off and committing fraud on a lot of people.  They could be ran by a needy refugee family but it still doesn't justify committing fraud. 

 

So regardless who is nicer, who is meaner, or who is a 2nd generation chinese immigrant or whatever. The party in the wrong is the people committing the fraud regardless if it's an accident or intentional.

[Aeoliuu]

this guy is such a dick literally there is so much fraud happening in this world that is so much more serious but he decides to target such a small thing

 

lame

[bananabrows]

Can't blame him because he's technically right, but wow, what an asshole. 

[......]

clearly he's right to ask for a refund.

clearly, by statute, he's afforded the right to ask for triple the overpay... 

clearly, he's afforded the right to take legal action.

 

Clearly, he's also a black and white douchebag.

 

both fail in my book. Fraud should be dealt with, and I bet this establishment has made plenty of money off their outdated website...knowingly...which is bullshit....

but this guy also exhibits massive amounts of pomposity. I can think of many different ways, Mr. Edeleman could go about keeping the chinese food establishment honest. He's choosing the American asshole way.

[hess]

Maybe

 

The key thing is

 

1.  They advertised a price

2.  They charge more on the receipt

 

That's fraud.  So regardless if the guy is the biggest asshole in the world the restaurant is still at fault and needs to fix their shit because they are ripping off and committing fraud on a lot of people.  They could be ran by a needy refugee family but it still doesn't justify committing fraud. 

 

So regardless who is nicer, who is meaner, or who is a 2nd generation chinese immigrant or whatever. The party in the wrong is the people committing the fraud regardless if it's an accident or intentional.

Yeah, I get that. The extra douchebaggery isn't necessary though.

[jvers]

the dude said it first

[elolery]

hmm...it's something I would close one eye at (rise in food prices every now and then). I would only complain if the food sucks XD

[Almondandlime]

I'm pretty sure I've been to that restaurant before...

[PShell]

hmm...it's something I would close one eye at (rise in food prices every now and then). I would only complain if the food sucks XD

 

so if no one is a dick or lawyer then restraunts all over would start understating their prices online then hit you with mark ups after you have purchased.

 

It's a good consumer protection action he took.

 

I don't really care if he hurt the dudes feelings or not.  The guy was committing fraud and should have just accepted the critique and fixed his shit.

 

Most likely, honestly, they had the prices lower on purpose just to rip people off a bit since like you said most wouldn't care.  "Pompous assholes" are a good thing if it means people don't get away with shit like this. 

 

The owner/management knew the online prices are wrong and didn't fix them.

 

The article and framing/narrative of "harvard lawyer" vs "mom and pop" and shit about freaking out about $4 is just meant to get you to side with the people in the obvious wrong side. 

 

He admitted he knew the website was out of date for a long time.  This wasn't some surprise. 

[numanbie]

If the restaurant provided a refund and changed their prices, I would be okay with everything. If they made repeat offences, I would ask for a mandatory donation to charity or something.

[saytor312]

Wow, this is pretty crazy all this bickering over 4 dollars lol. I mean the prof has a point that the owner should've updated the website. But the professor actions seem to be very bully like once the owner admitted the mistake and fixed the problem. Too bad the owner just didn't refund the 12 dollars and updated the website and call it a day. All this over four dollars is stupid especially over a minor issue. 

[mgl]

He's right in his claims, but he could have toned down the asshole dial a bit. It just makes him sound like he was looking for a fight in this.

[♩ ♪ ♫ ♬]

he just damaged his own & harvard's reputation for this & also for the sushi coupon problem with another sushi restaurant..

hardly worth $12 even though he was technically right the way the owner handled it appeals to the public more.. just read his statement here:

 

Ran Duan is ready to move on.

The Woburn restaurant owner involved in a highly publicized dispute with Harvard Business school associate professor Ben Edelman spoke to Boston.com about the situation and expressed a desire to put the ordeal behind him.

RELATED LINKS

• Harvard Business School Prof Goes to War Over $4 Worth of Chinese Food
• Who Is Ben Edelman, Sheriff of the (Chinese Food) Internet?
• Sichuan Garden ‘Overwhelmed’ by Outpouring of Support
• Harvard Business School Students React
• Nothing Does More for a Small Business Than Being Attacked by a Professor

“I forgive people...I mean...I tried to do everything and he obviously has valid points that he’s right. I’m not here to argue who’s right and who’s wrong I just want to get it resolved,†Duan told Boston.com. “I’m from a Chinese background and chain of command, respect your elders, everything’s been ingrained in me since I was a little boy.â€

Duan says he has received hundreds of emails since the dispute was first reported.

“A majority of the emails were from people from Harvard that expressed their apologies on behalf of the situation. They don’t owe me an apology. I actually own them an apology because they are getting a bad rap by associating with this whole ordeal.â€

Duan’s parents founded Sichuan Garden, which has locations in Woburn and Brookline Village, in the early 1990s.

Duan said he’s sending Edelman a check in hopes of resolving the dispute once and for all.

“I’m actually going to honor him full price back just out of the goodness of my heart. I will be donating money to the Greater Boston Food Bank, as well, which I hope (Edelman) takes that check and donates it as well.â€

“Hopefully we can learn something from this and just move on as a community,†Duan said.