Restaurant critics beware!

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:25:33 +1200, bob <[email hidden]>
magnanimously proffered:

Quoted message said:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=304&objectid=10449681&pnum=0

Restaurants Story

Reviewers criticise at their legal peril
5:00AM Thursday July 05, 2007
By David Usborne

Everybody wants to be a critic, but be warned. Praise what you see -
or taste - and the creator will love you forever. Slam it, however,
and they might just try to bite back.

Seems like an epidemic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2104023,00.html

Critics up in arms as restaurant review judged defamatory

What does this mean for restaurant critics? Read Matthew Evans' full
review and have your say on our food blog.

Barbara McMahon in Sydney
Friday June 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Australian food critics were left spluttering into their napkins today
after a court decided that an unfavourable review of a Sydney
restaurant was defamatory, opening the way for the owners to claim
damages.

The critics said the decision could lead to reviewers of theatre,
music, literature and art fearing to speak their minds in case they
too were sued.

The case centres on a review of Coco Roco restaurant, published in the
Sydney Morning Herald newspaper in 2003. Matthew Evans, then the
newspaper's chief food critic, dined at the restaurant twice and was
not impressed.

He said the flavour of oysters soaked in limoncello "jangled like a
car crash" and that a sherry scented apricot white sauce that
accompanied steak was a "wretched garnish" that he scraped off.

Awarding the restaurant only nine points out of 20, he concluded that
"more than half the dishes I've tried at Coco Roco are simply
unpalatable", and that the food was overpriced.

Coco Roco closed three months after the review and the owners, who had
spent more than A$3m (£1m) refitting the restaurant blamed it on the
reviewer, saying that customers had been put off by Evans's words.

The affair has been in the courts for months and in the latest ruling,
the high court of New South Wales found that the review was an attack
on the restaurant as a business. "Business capacity and reputation are
different from personal reputation," the judgment said. "Harm to the
former can be, as here, inflicted more directly and narrowly than harm
to a person's reputation."

The Sydney Morning Herald's current chief restaurant critic, Simon
Thomsen, said the judgment meant that now "anything short of
hagiography will be defamatory". Veteran Australian food critic Leo
Schoolfield said the ruling set a bad precedent. "If a poor review
leads to diminished returns at the box office of the theatre, are we
now going to say that it is due to the review and not to the quality
of the work," he asked.

David Griffiths, executive chef at Wildfire, one of Sydney's best
restaurants, said it was laughable to suggest that one bad review
could close a restaurant. Matthew Moran, the head chef of another
popular restaurant Aria, said his restaurant had benefited from
constructive criticism of food critics like Mr Evans.

Further hearings will be held so that the newspaper can put forward
its defence and for the court to decide if the owners of Coco Roco are
entitled to damages.

The court's decision comes after a jury in Belfast, Northern Ireland,
upheld a restaurant owner's claim that a review in the Irish News was
defamatory and awarded him £25,000 earlier this year.

--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

bob said:

According to the suit, it
was not a strip steak that he ate, but rather a steak sandwich without
the bread - in other words, an inferior cut.

Is a steak sandwich without bread not a steak?

Quoted message said:

"No legitimate food critic would ever mistake, or compare, a steak
sandwich with a strip steak," the lawsuit says.

Steak sandwiches are usually made with a thin strip or ribeye.
Unless you're being a cheap [censored] like Sheldon.

The restaurant will lose this if the case even survives that
long.

All he has to do is print an apology: "Were made a mistake in the
5/16 issue. The restaurant in question is now claiming they
served me an inferior cut of meat that was not a strip steak. We
apologize for the error. But I still maintain that it sucked,
big time"

-sw

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:38:08 +1200, bob <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:25:33 +1200, bob <[email hidden]>
magnanimously proffered:

Quoted message said:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=304&objectid=10449681&pnum=0

Restaurants Story

Reviewers criticise at their legal peril
5:00AM Thursday July 05, 2007
By David Usborne

Everybody wants to be a critic, but be warned. Praise what you see -
or taste - and the creator will love you forever. Slam it, however,
and they might just try to bite back.

Seems like an epidemic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2104023,00.html

Critics up in arms as restaurant review judged defamatory

What does this mean for restaurant critics? Read Matthew Evans' full
review and have your say on our food blog.

Barbara McMahon in Sydney
Friday June 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

snip

Quoted message said:

Awarding the restaurant only nine points out of 20, he concluded that
"more than half the dishes I've tried at Coco Roco are simply
unpalatable", and that the food was overpriced.

Coco Roco closed three months after the review and the owners, who had
spent more than A$3m (£1m) refitting the restaurant blamed it on the
reviewer, saying that customers had been put off by Evans's words.

Seems like they are shooting the messenger! Customers would have
reached that conclusion too. In fact, it may have hung on a bit
longer than it should have due to being mentioned at all. Restaurant
critics do not make or break restaurants, but they do advertize them
for free.

--

History is a vast early warning system
Norman Cousins

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:38:08 +1200, bob <[email hidden]>
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:25:33 +1200, bob <[email hidden]>
magnanimously proffered:

Quoted message said:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=304&objectid=10449681&pnum=0

Restaurants Story

Reviewers criticise at their legal peril
5:00AM Thursday July 05, 2007
By David Usborne

Everybody wants to be a critic, but be warned. Praise what you see -
or taste - and the creator will love you forever. Slam it, however,
and they might just try to bite back.

Seems like an epidemic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2104023,00.html

Critics up in arms as restaurant review judged defamatory

<snip>

I am totally not getting how a restaurant can sue a restaurant critic.
They might not think the review fair or unbiased, but it is an
*opinion* that is, assumedly, given by someone with some expertise in
the field:

"A critic (derived from the ancient Greek word krites meaning a judge)
is a person who offers a value judgment or an interpretation. (The
word is sometimes used pejoratively, especially by defenders of a
critic's object.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic"

Seems to me that a "value judgment or an interpretation" is on its
face subjective. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove libel and
I'd love to hear what the judge's findings of facts and conclusions of
law were - or its Ozzer equivilant.

I was, however, happy to see that the restaurant that got sued in the
above post was in Australia and not the notoriously litigation-happy
US.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd...the litigation paralegal <blush>

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

I am totally not getting how a restaurant can sue a
restaurant critic. They might not think the review fair
or unbiased, but it is an *opinion* that is, assumedly,
given by someone with some expertise in the field:

You don't seem to understand. Anybody can
sue anybody for darn near anything. That
doesn't mean they'll win. A suit like this
one should be dismissed before trial, but
that requires the defendant to make a motion
to dismiss, which usually requires a lawyer.

Often the purpose of suit is not to win,
but to harass the defendant.

That's why numerous state have passed laws
punishing plaintiffs that bring SLAPP suits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

I am totally not getting how a restaurant can sue a restaurant critic.

Usually the chef's just commit suicide rather than suing.

There actually is a law now that you can be held liable for
expressing an opinion. It's mainly for big corporations for
utilize, but even little guys are taking advantage of it.

I forget the exact law, but it has been upheld in court as seen
here:
http://courses.cs.vt.edu/professionalism/Freedom.of.Speech/Web.talk.html

You can read the ongoing saga at:
http://www.petsforum.com/psw/

ObFood(andDrink): Two little bottles of chablis mixed with pure
raspberry juice.

-sw

In article <[email hidden]>,

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

I am totally not getting how a restaurant can sue a restaurant critic.
They might not think the review fair or unbiased, but it is an
*opinion* that is, assumedly, given by someone with some expertise in
the field:

"A critic (derived from the ancient Greek word krites meaning a judge)
is a person who offers a value judgment or an interpretation. (The
word is sometimes used pejoratively, especially by defenders of a
critic's object.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic"

Seems to me that a "value judgment or an interpretation" is on its
face subjective. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove libel and
I'd love to hear what the judge's findings of facts and conclusions of
law were - or its Ozzer equivilant.

Terry, being as though your husband and you both work in the legal
profession, I am surprised you would make the comment in your first
paragraph. We all know that in the USA, anyone can sue anyone for any
reason, even for meritless reasons.

I don't agree with this law suit, but I have been following it since I
am in the area where this food critic, Craig LaBan, operates. I have
read many of his restaurant reviews. I like his style of writing.

The crux of this law suit is that LaBan gave a negative review on a meal
he ate at a suburban Philadelphia steak house called Chops. Amongst
other negative things, LaBan wrote that the steak he was served was
"miserably tough and fatty".

The suit alleges that LeBan made an invalid comment about the steak
because the restaurant's owner claims it was a sandwich, but LaBan wrote
that it was a strip steak and didn't say it was part of a sandwich.

The restaurant owner feels that if LaBan had reviewed the meal from the
perspective of eating a sandwich, not a full fledged steak, his review
would have been better because his expectations of the meal would have
been different.

Ironically, the plaintiff is not disputing that the steak was chewy and
fatty; his complaint is that it is supposed to be that way because it
was on a sandwich, which LaBan says is strange because no bread was
served on the plate with the steak.

The reason this got onto your radar screen isn't so much that the law
suit took place; its that the deposition is on video tape. LaBan and his
attorneys wanted to avoid taping the deposition because they fear the
tape will become public and LaBan's anonymity will be lost. LaBan claims
that without his ability to go into a restaurant without being
recognized, his job will be over because he will be treated better than
if he would, were he anonymous.

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

I am totally not getting how a restaurant can sue a restaurant critic.
They might not think the review fair or unbiased, but it is an
*opinion* that is, assumedly, given by someone with some expertise in
the field:

The fact that it's opinion doesn't spare it from having
to be true rather than false.

In order to sue they only need a lawyer. In order to win
they need to prove that the critic was lying. The more
outlandish a critic gets with his insults, the easier that
becomes.

And it'd be easy to prove intent. A critic always has
the intent to either increase or decrease the fortunes
of whatever they're criticizing. That's their job.
So if they do it and lie, then the intent to lie to cause
economic loss is obvious.

--Blair

Stan Horwitz said:

The crux of this law suit is that LaBan gave a negative review on a meal
he ate at a suburban Philadelphia steak house called Chops. Amongst
other negative things, LaBan wrote that the steak he was served was
"miserably tough and fatty".

The suit alleges that LeBan made an invalid comment about the steak
because the restaurant's owner claims it was a sandwich, but LaBan wrote
that it was a strip steak and didn't say it was part of a sandwich.

I wonder what he ordered.

If he ordered a strip steak and got a sandwich steak, then
he was defrauded.

And if he ordered a strip-steak sandwich and got some
other cut in his sandwich, then he was defrauded.

And if I ordered a steak sandwich in a place that was
supposed to have good steaks and got a fatty, gristly
piece of meat, I'd complain about it to the public, too.

Lots of wiggle room. If the whole case is based on
semantics the judge is going to kick some steakhouse ass.

--Blair

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 19:00:01 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
<[email hidden]> magnanimously proffered:

Quoted message said:

I was, however, happy to see that the restaurant that got sued in the
above post was in Australia and not the notoriously litigation-happy
US.

Actually, the first example in the article was a restaurant near
Philadelphia and the paper sued was the Philadelphia Inquirer.

But it's made me wonder what might happen in New Zealand, where my
wife and I have been guests of a restaurant critic three times. The
reservation was made in my name, because the critic's name would be
recognised. However, the magazine pays the bill.

The critic always goes out to the restaurant he's reviewing with a
hospitality trade expert and at least one other couple, to get their
feedback. But he decides on the final score on his own.

Amongst other things during the evening we discuss the service,
ambience and food amongst ourselves. But as far as anyone else is
concerned we're just a few friends talking about Paris Hilton or
something equally fascinating.

On the following day the critic phones to discuss the experience again
and then goes away to consider his verdict.

As he clearly states in the preamble to his monthly review, the points
(points for food, service, ambience = overall score of 0 - 10) reflect
the experience of the critic and his guests on that particular night
and nothing else. So the score refers to one single experience and is
not intended to be an absolute rating for the restaurant.

Unfortunately, that's not how some restaurateurs see it - especially
an old friend whose restaurant got a 5.5 one year and a 6.5 another.
She's never forgiven the magazine or the critic (even though both
scores were well deserved). Frankly, I would have thought that
switched-on restaurateurs would learn from a negative review and make
the appropriate improvements instead of blaming the reviewer for
noticing the obvious.

--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 19:24:52 -0700, Mark Thorson <[email hidden]>
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

Quoted message said:

You don't seem to understand. Anybody can
sue anybody for darn near anything.

Oh, I understand very well indeed. I'm a litigation paralegal and have
been for nearly 25 years.

Quoted message said:

That
doesn't mean they'll win. A suit like this
one should be dismissed before trial, but
that requires the defendant to make a motion
to dismiss, which usually requires a lawyer.

Anyone in this great land can appear pro se.

Quoted message said:

Often the purpose of suit is not to win,
but to harass the defendant.

We had a client (who we fired) who sought to win lawsuits by "spending
the other guy's money," which is, unfortunately, all too successful.

Quoted message said:

That's why numerous state have passed laws
punishing plaintiffs that bring SLAPP suits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP

wipipedia is not always your friend. Since I'm posting from home, I
don't have all my legal resources at hand, but the SLAPP suit is
intended to prevent individuals and corporations from chilling a
citizen's right to:

"...participate in government and civic affairs, speak freely on
public issues, and petition government officials for redress of
grievances. Yet, individuals and community groups are often sued for
exercising these constitutional rights. These suits are known as
"SLAPPs," or "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation."

http://www.thefirstamendment.org/antislappresourcecenter.html

And, yes, the defendant should have filed an Anti-SLAPP suit, as the
plaintiff is clearly trying to chill the restaurant critic's First
Amendment guarantees.

Coincidentally, we go to court on Wednesday to a hearing on our
client's Anti-SLAPP motion. It's becoming one of the most misused
tools in litigation, IMHO...well, that and that *idiotic* *^&%#>$!!
Form Interrogatories the bright lights in Sacramento dreamed up.

OB Food: Anyone who tries to eat a meal at LA Superior's cafeteria is
out of his/her mind. OTOH, there is a great view of the new Disney
Center from its balcony.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 08:44:34 -0400, Stan Horwitz <[email hidden]>
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

Quoted message said:

Terry, being as though your husband and you both work in the legal
profession, I am surprised you would make the comment in your first
paragraph. We all know that in the USA, anyone can sue anyone for any
reason, even for meritless reasons.

No, I'm not being naive, Stan, I just get worn out sometimes by the
idiocy I see in my work week. And there are laws against frivolous
lawsuits and "vexatious" litigants. I just wish they were more
strenuously applied. I blame much of the frivolous lawsuits on
contingency fees and avaricious lawyers.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

The restaurant owner feels that if LaBan had reviewed the meal from the
perspective of eating a sandwich, not a full fledged steak, his review
would have been better because his expectations of the meal would have
been different.

Ironically, the plaintiff is not disputing that the steak was chewy and
fatty; his complaint is that it is supposed to be that way because it
was on a sandwich, which LaBan says is strange because no bread was
served on the plate with the steak.

And LaBan was supposed to eat imaginary bread with this steak
"sandwich"? And if I'm served a "chewy and fatty" steak sandwich, I'd
be plenny unhappy, too, Loosey.

Quoted message said:

The reason this got onto your radar screen isn't so much that the law
suit took place; its that the deposition is on video tape. LaBan and his
attorneys wanted to avoid taping the deposition because they fear the
tape will become public and LaBan's anonymity will be lost. LaBan claims
that without his ability to go into a restaurant without being
recognized, his job will be over because he will be treated better than
if he would, were he anonymous.

Any lawyer worth his pinstripes would be able to make a motion to have
the videotape *lodged* with the court or a motion in limine to have it
kept out, which means it's not in the public forum for anyone to just
waltz in to the clerk's office/videographer's office and request a
copy. And I rather doubt that LaBan's mug isn't common knowledge among
restaurateurs, anyway. If you have an upscale Manhattan eatery, for
instance, you'd have gotten your hands on a photo of the guy and had
it posted at the maitre d's station <g>

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

OB Food: Anyone who tries to eat a meal at LA Superior's cafeteria is
out of his/her mind.

That's it - I'm suing you for defamation. We could make it
class action suit. Who's with me?

-sw

In article <[email hidden]>,

Blair P. Houghton said:

Stan Horwitz said:

The crux of this law suit is that LaBan gave a negative review on a meal
he ate at a suburban Philadelphia steak house called Chops. Amongst
other negative things, LaBan wrote that the steak he was served was
"miserably tough and fatty".

The suit alleges that LeBan made an invalid comment about the steak
because the restaurant's owner claims it was a sandwich, but LaBan wrote
that it was a strip steak and didn't say it was part of a sandwich.

I wonder what he ordered.

If he ordered a strip steak and got a sandwich steak, then
he was defrauded.

The article said LaBan ordered a dish called "steak frites" but there is
some disagreement as to what that that dish is.

Quoted message said:

And if he ordered a strip-steak sandwich and got some
other cut in his sandwich, then he was defrauded.

Yup. Being a born and raised Philadelphian, if I was served a chewy and
fatty steak sandwich, I would be none too happy, and I don't care what
kind of meat was on the sandwich.

Quoted message said:

And if I ordered a steak sandwich in a place that was
supposed to have good steaks and got a fatty, gristly
piece of meat, I'd complain about it to the public, too.

Lots of wiggle room. If the whole case is based on
semantics the judge is going to kick some steakhouse ass.

I agree. Like Terry said in her posting, this litigation is ridiculous.
I hope the judge turns around and finds for LaBan and makes the
plaintiff pay LaBan's legal fees.

Terry, it didn't occur to me, but now that you mention it, I do find it
hard to believe that any restaurateur worth his salt in Philadelphia
can't figure out how to get a photo of Craig LaBan. After all, this IS
the information age!

bob said:

That's one of your problems, Sheldon. You're positive about so many
things you know absolutely nothing about, including geography.

Sue you? What for ... ignorance? Arrogance? A total absence of
finesse?

Just imagine his words coming out of Bucky Katt.

Terry wrote on Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:02:14 -0700:

??>> Terry, being as though your husband and you both work in
??>> the legal profession, I am surprised you would make the
??>> comment in your first paragraph. We all know that in the
??>> USA, anyone can sue anyone for any reason, even for
??>> meritless reasons.

TPB> No, I'm not being naive, Stan, I just get worn out
TPB> sometimes by the idiocy I see in my work week. And there
TPB> are laws against frivolous lawsuits and "vexatious"
TPB> litigants. I just wish they were more strenuously applied.
TPB> I blame much of the frivolous lawsuits on contingency fees
TPB> and avaricious lawyers.

Look at that pompous ass of an administrative judge in DC who
sued a cleaning shop for $35 million because their sign said
"Satisfaction Guaranteed" and he wasn't when they maybe lost his
pants.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Steve Wertz said:

ObFood(andDrink): Two little bottles of chablis mixed with pure
raspberry juice.

If it was good Chablis, that is pure murder.
Yes, you can sue me on that quote ;-)

Nathalie in Switzerland (not far from Burgundy)

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:09:41 -0700, Sheldon <[email hidden]>
magnanimously proffered:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm positive that all KIWI restaurants suck big time... sue me.

That's one of your problems, Sheldon. You're positive about so many
things you know absolutely nothing about, including geography.

Sue you? What for ... ignorance? Arrogance? A total absence of
finesse?

Two out of three I'll readily admit to... but you are the only
ignorant one here... bob (uses his ga-ga goo-goo baby talk name
because he's too ashamed of his adult name), so grossly ignorant that
relative to your IQ a turnip is Albert Einstien. Newspapers have
Editorial and Op-Ed pages, that's where *opinions* (including
restaurant reviews) are printed. It's people the likes of you who
instill the opinion that all Kiwis are ignorant uncivilized bush
dwellers... now stfu, rob baby, and munch your widdle grubbies.

Now, now, Sheldon. You really mustn't get your knickers in a twist. It
just makes you write more nonsense and gives a bad name to the
rational Sheldons of this world.

--

una cerveza mas por favor ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Stan Horwitz said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Blair P. Houghton said:

I wonder what he ordered.

If he ordered a strip steak and got a sandwich steak, then
he was defrauded.

The article said LaBan ordered a dish called "steak frites" but there is
some disagreement as to what that that dish is.

You kidding? That's a 100-year-old Bistro term for a steak
and french fries. Preferabley Hanger steak.

I would expect a steak, and french fries.

And there's no way that anyone's confusing a strip
for a hanger steak, if they know what they are.
To put a gristly strip out and call it a "sandwich
steak" in order to justify a lawsuit is a good reason
to lose a business. I say countersue.

Quoted message said:

Terry, it didn't occur to me, but now that you mention it, I do find it
hard to believe that any restaurateur worth his salt in Philadelphia
can't figure out how to get a photo of Craig LaBan. After all, this IS
the information age!

Given that the resteratuer doesn't know the difference between
a steak and a steak-umm, I expect him to find out Craig LaBan
looks like Huckleberry Hound.

--Blair

P.S. So while I'm up getting a soda and changing a
lightbulb in the middle of writing this post, Tyler
Florence comes on the TV and introduces us to Applebee's
new "New York Strip Steak," which looks like a pale slice
of pumpernickel...ugh...