Discussion for article #230997
“Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!”
4 Likes
Seriously, Professor? Way too much time in his hands.
3 Likes
What I want to know is were the wontons four extra dollars worth of awesome?
If they were, Tartaros just HAS to get some takeout.
And BENGHAZI!
3 Likes
I’ll take 'Biggest Douchebags in Boston" for $200.
12 Likes
And Obama’s Birth Certificate.
1 Like
“Harvard Professor Acts Like Everyone’s Worst Stereotype of a Harvard Professor. Film at 11.”
18 Likes
What would this guy do if his unarmed kid was shot and killed by a cop? While his hands were up? And he’s probably a fox viewer who thinks the grand juries are right.
2 Likes
I wonder if this dude is in any way, shape or form related to Ted Cruz. Both dumb assess.
1 Like
Edelman needs a day job…
Ben Edelman is one of those people who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. If you are over charged for something, it’s fine to ask for a refund. He crossed the line into total dickishness when he refused the offer of a simple refund/apology and started asking for a special, extralegal refund for himself and threatening legal action. The statute that Mr. Dickhead cites is intended to protect consumers from actual fraud; not from a $4 overcharge from a restaurant with a slightly out of date menu on their website.
11 Likes
My wife is in academia. I run into people like this guy at cocktail parties all the time, sad to say.
6 Likes
I don’t have a big problem with this. Consumers suffer death by a thousand cuts. If you’re overcharged it’s up to you to notice, and if you do, the best result is simply getting your money back. All the risk is on the consumer. Is that fair? People are smacking their head about suing over $8, but that’s how much individuals are being overcharged by, so how else do we fix annoying business practices? The restaurant isn’t willing to part with the measly $8 that state law apparently mandates – who’s being unreasonable?
If I were in the same situation, I might consider the same course of action. And my wife would kill me. (To be precise: I’d consider the action, but never go through with it. I’d feel like a dick.)
5 Likes
Life can become difficult - actually torturous - if you can’t learn to let things like this go. You miss out on living.
4 Likes
It was a $4 overcharge not an $8 overcharge. And he’s actually totally wrong in his analysis. They would have had to intentionally hide the actual price and do so with the intent to defraud the purchaser. He’s a bully who’s misapplying the law and depending on the ignorance of the recipient of his bullying. I am sure he does this sort of thing all the time.
Moreover, the law he cites doesn’t specifically make this illegal. It just allows the AGO to make regulations.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter93A/Section2
5 Likes
[quote=“PB, post:11, topic:14175”]
The statute that Mr. Dickhead cites is intended to protect consumers from actual fraud; not from a $4 overcharge from a restaurant with a slightly out of date menu on their website.
[/quote]This is sort of true, but you might make the argument that simply advertising one price and charging another – the activity the statute seems to target – isn’t exactly “fraud”. I’d say (and the restaurant would probably argue) the online menu doesn’t constitute “advertising”.
1 Like
[quote=“PB, post:15, topic:14175”]
It was a $4 overcharge not an $8 overcharge.
[/quote]He wants $12; the restaurant was willing to just refund the $4. The argument is over the difference.
If it bothered me that much I’d have told the owner he lost my business. I’ve done it in the past and I’m sure I’ll do it in the future too. Hiring a lawyer over 4 dollars is fucking childish.
6 Likes
There is no evidence that he is entitled to the “treble damages” refund of $12. He’s just a bully.
2 Likes
This is a lost Seinfeld episode, right? And “Ben Edelman” is a pseudonym for George Constanza. Suddenly it all makes sense.
6 Likes