As many of you know, I'm a paralegal in a law firm, which has little
to do with the following, but just setting the scene. My boss was
taken by a client to dinner the other night in LA after the execution
of a successful contract. Mind you, the client has a 7 figure plus
bank account, but tends to be a bit slow in paying his bills and a bit
over interested in the cost of things or what he has paid for things.
He also considers himself quite an oenophile.

While he perused the wine list, he found what he was certain was a
typo. Wine X, which is a favorite of his, was priced at $X7 and he was
sure it should have been priced $200 more than that (I checked - he
was right). He promptly ordered 4 bottles, 2 to take home. First of
all, I wasn't aware that you could order wine in a restaurant as if it
was a liquor store (this is southern California, so who knows). More
importantly, I can sort of see ordering 1 bottle while pointing out to
the staff that you think the price is a typo and you should at least
get the one bottle at that price, but I was offended that he ordered
several bottles and rather gleefully left thinking he had really put
one over on the restaurant.

My first reaction when my boss told me this story was that when we
finish the current lawsuit, we not take on any more work for him. If
he's willing to cheat a restaurant, he won't hesitate to cheat anyone
else. And a client like that we do not need or want. My boss
acknowledges my concerns, and says that he is more valuable to the
client than the client is to us, so if I want to cross him off our
client list, it's okay with him.

Am I overreacting?

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" > wrote in message
>
> While he perused the wine list, he found what he was certain was a
> typo. Wine X, which is a favorite of his, was priced at $X7 and he was
> sure it should have been priced $200 more than that (I checked - he
> was right).

How did you check? Could be a slight difference from what you think it is
or the restaurant got a good eal when they bought the wine a few years ago.
Did you check witht he restaurant?




>
> My first reaction when my boss told me this story was that when we
> finish the current lawsuit, we not take on any more work for him. If
> he's willing to cheat a restaurant, he won't hesitate to cheat anyone
> else. And a client like that we do not need or want.

Cheated? He bought what was offeed for sale at the price asked. If the
bottle had a price tag of $200 and he slipped it by the staff for $20, that
is cheating, if not downright theft. He did nothing illeagal, possibly
immoral, but we don't know that for sure. If it was a similar typo (if it
was indeed a typo) in the Wal Mart sales flyer, everyone would be jumping at
them for not selling the item at that price, shouting corporate greed!

I bought some wine that sells for $45 a bottle for $10. I just bought it at
the right time and let it age for five years while the price of the
remaining stock went up. How do you know the restaurant did not do the same
thing.

Not knowing how you checked the situation, you may or may not be jumping to
conclusions.



> My boss
> acknowledges my concerns, and says that he is more valuable to the
> client than the client is to us, so if I want to cross him off our
> client list, it's okay with him.

He may or may not be scum. Same for the lawyer. I don't know either so I'm
not in a position to draw any conclusions, but the fact is, some clients are
scum, so are some lawyers.

>
> Am I overreacting?

Can't say from what I know.

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:

>While he perused the wine list, he found what he was certain was a
>typo. Wine X, which is a favorite of his, was priced at $X7 and he was
>sure it should have been priced $200 more than that (I checked - he
>was right). He promptly ordered 4 bottles, 2 to take home. First of
>all, I wasn't aware that you could order wine in a restaurant as if it
>was a liquor store (this is southern California, so who knows). More
>importantly, I can sort of see ordering 1 bottle while pointing out to
>the staff that you think the price is a typo and you should at least
>get the one bottle at that price, but I was offended that he ordered
>several bottles and rather gleefully left thinking he had really put
>one over on the restaurant.

>My first reaction when my boss told me this story was that when we
>finish the current lawsuit, we not take on any more work for him. If
>he's willing to cheat a restaurant, he won't hesitate to cheat anyone
>else. And a client like that we do not need or want. My boss
>acknowledges my concerns, and says that he is more valuable to the
>client than the client is to us, so if I want to cross him off our
>client list, it's okay with him.

>Am I overreacting?

Some fraction of the wealthy got there by cheating, scrimping,
and pinching people. Not all, but a noticeable number. I would be
surprised if he is unique among your wealthier clients.

Regarding the wine list, sometimes a wine stays at a low price
on a winelist even as its market price has gone up with time.
They could have bought it pre-arrival at a bargain, and never
marked it up to market. Probably they are not losing any money.
And probably they would not have sold him four bottles if they
were close to running out.

And it's possible in California for a restaurant to have an offsale
license.

Steve

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 06:44:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>
>>While he perused the wine list, he found what he was certain was a
>>typo. Wine X, which is a favorite of his, was priced at $X7 and he was
>>sure it should have been priced $200 more than that (I checked - he
>>was right). He promptly ordered 4 bottles, 2 to take home. First of
>>all, I wasn't aware that you could order wine in a restaurant as if it
>>was a liquor store (this is southern California, so who knows). More
>>importantly, I can sort of see ordering 1 bottle while pointing out to
>>the staff that you think the price is a typo and you should at least
>>get the one bottle at that price, but I was offended that he ordered
>>several bottles and rather gleefully left thinking he had really put
>>one over on the restaurant.
>
>>My first reaction when my boss told me this story was that when we
>>finish the current lawsuit, we not take on any more work for him. If
>>he's willing to cheat a restaurant, he won't hesitate to cheat anyone
>>else. And a client like that we do not need or want. My boss
>>acknowledges my concerns, and says that he is more valuable to the
>>client than the client is to us, so if I want to cross him off our
>>client list, it's okay with him.
>
>>Am I overreacting?

Yes, you're over reacting - for the wrong reason. If the restaurant
was willing to part with those bottles of wine for his off-site,
private, consumption - you know they made a profit and he's the one
who lost money.
>
>Some fraction of the wealthy got there by cheating, scrimping,
>and pinching people. Not all, but a noticeable number. I would be
>surprised if he is unique among your wealthier clients.
>
>Regarding the wine list, sometimes a wine stays at a low price
>on a winelist even as its market price has gone up with time.
>They could have bought it pre-arrival at a bargain, and never
>marked it up to market. Probably they are not losing any money.
>And probably they would not have sold him four bottles if they
>were close to running out.
>
>And it's possible in California for a restaurant to have an offsale
>license.
>
In California, some restaurants only charge modestly over retail (not
even double). So until I hear what wine it was (type,
vineyard/year)and the price, this is just another fish story for me.


--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for the chicken, a lifetime commitment for the pig.

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote in
news
> While he perused the wine list, he found what he was certain was a
> typo. Wine X, which is a favorite of his, was priced at $X7 and he was
> sure it should have been priced $200 more than that (I checked - he
> was right). He promptly ordered 4 bottles, 2 to take home.

> My first reaction when my boss told me this story was that when we
> finish the current lawsuit, we not take on any more work for him. If
> he's willing to cheat a restaurant, he won't hesitate to cheat anyone
> else. And a client like that we do not need or want. My boss
> acknowledges my concerns, and says that he is more valuable to the
> client than the client is to us, so if I want to cross him off our
> client list, it's okay with him.
>
> Am I overreacting?

The prices on a menu are a contract. If you are the restaurant and
publish a contract then you are obligated to honor the contract. I worked
at a restaurant where we showed a piece of pie in the menu, the one
delivered was not anything like the picture. Manager told me it took
three pieces of pie to make it look as big as the strawberry pie in the
picture.



--

Charles
The significant problems we face cannot be solved
at the same level of thinking we were at when we
created them. Albert Einstein

Charles Quinn wrote:
> Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote in
> news >
>> While he perused the wine list, he found what he was certain was a
>> typo. Wine X, which is a favorite of his, was priced at $X7 and he was
>> sure it should have been priced $200 more than that (I checked - he
>> was right). He promptly ordered 4 bottles, 2 to take home.
>
>> My first reaction when my boss told me this story was that when we
>> finish the current lawsuit, we not take on any more work for him. If
>> he's willing to cheat a restaurant, he won't hesitate to cheat anyone
>> else. And a client like that we do not need or want. My boss
>> acknowledges my concerns, and says that he is more valuable to the
>> client than the client is to us, so if I want to cross him off our
>> client list, it's okay with him.
>>
>> Am I overreacting?
>
> The prices on a menu are a contract. If you are the restaurant and
> publish a contract then you are obligated to honor the contract.

Unless they can show there was an error. Contract law allows for
clerical/computational errors.


I worked
> at a restaurant where we showed a piece of pie in the menu, the one
> delivered was not anything like the picture. Manager told me it took
> three pieces of pie to make it look as big as the strawberry pie in the
> picture.
>
>
>

>> The prices on a menu are a contract. If you are the
>> restaurant and publish a contract then you are
>> obligated to honor the contract.
>
> Unless they can show there was an error. Contract law allows for clerical/computational errors.

Technically, the prices on the menu are an offer. An
offer becomes a contract when there is consideration.
That is, when the customer pays or the restaurateur
prepares the ordered food, it becomes a contract.
Until then there is no contract and the restaurant can
refuse the order if they realize there's been an error.

My comment above has nothing to do with the OP's
original question "am I over-reacting?" I would say
no. This client is definitely a sleaze and the firm
will be better off without him. His behavior not only
demeaned himself but those at the table with him by
association.

As to another comment in this thread regarding wealthy
people in general, I think that was unfair. There are
many generous, decent people who also happen to be
rich. Unfortunately, none of them want to do anything
for me. :^)

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-925-8650
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>

On Aug 25, 7:56?pm, Terry Pulliam Burd >
wrote:
> As many of you know, I'm a paralegal in a law firm, which has little
> to do with the following, but just setting the scene. My boss was
> taken by a client to dinner the other night in LA after the execution
> of a successful contract. Mind you, the client has a 7 figure plus
> bank account, but tends to be a bit slow in paying his bills and a bit
> over interested in the cost of things or what he has paid for things.
> He also considers himself quite an oenophile.
>
> While he perused the wine list, he found what he was certain was a
> typo. Wine X, which is a favorite of his, was priced at $X7 and he was
> sure it should have been priced $200 more than that (I checked - he
> was right). He promptly ordered 4 bottles, 2 to take home. First of
> all, I wasn't aware that you could order wine in a restaurant as if it
> was a liquor store (this is southern California, so who knows). More
> importantly, I can sort of see ordering 1 bottle while pointing out to
> the staff that you think the price is a typo and you should at least
> get the one bottle at that price, but I was offended that he ordered
> several bottles and rather gleefully left thinking he had really put
> one over on the restaurant.
>
> My first reaction when my boss told me this story was that when we
> finish the current lawsuit, we not take on any more work for him. If
> he's willing to cheat a restaurant, he won't hesitate to cheat anyone
> else. And a client like that we do not need or want. My boss
> acknowledges my concerns, and says that he is more valuable to the
> client than the client is to us, so if I want to cross him off our
> client list, it's okay with him.
>
> Am I overreacting?
>
> 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"

It is nice to hear there is a law office that only takes on clients
who do not cheat on their spouses, abuse their children, smoke dope,
get drunk driving tickets or look for loopholes in the tax codes. I
thought violations of ethical mores was what kept lawyers in
business.

"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
news
> As many of you know, I'm a paralegal in a law firm, which has little
> to do with the following, but just setting the scene. My boss was
> taken by a client to dinner the other night in LA after the execution
> of a successful contract. Mind you, the client has a 7 figure plus
> bank account, but tends to be a bit slow in paying his bills and a bit
> over interested in the cost of things or what he has paid for things.
> He also considers himself quite an oenophile.
>
> While he perused the wine list, he found what he was certain was a
> typo. Wine X, which is a favorite of his, was priced at $X7 and he was
> sure it should have been priced $200 more than that (I checked - he
> was right). He promptly ordered 4 bottles, 2 to take home. First of
> all, I wasn't aware that you could order wine in a restaurant as if it
> was a liquor store (this is southern California, so who knows). More
> importantly, I can sort of see ordering 1 bottle while pointing out to
> the staff that you think the price is a typo and you should at least
> get the one bottle at that price, but I was offended that he ordered
> several bottles and rather gleefully left thinking he had really put
> one over on the restaurant.
>
> My first reaction when my boss told me this story was that when we
> finish the current lawsuit, we not take on any more work for him. If
> he's willing to cheat a restaurant, he won't hesitate to cheat anyone
> else. And a client like that we do not need or want. My boss
> acknowledges my concerns, and says that he is more valuable to the
> client than the client is to us, so if I want to cross him off our
> client list, it's okay with him.
>
> Am I overreacting?

That depends.

Let's say you were looking for a Cuisinart stand mixer. You check the Bed,
Bath & Beyond web site and see a model you like for $349.00. You call the
store to be sure they have them in stock. You get to the store and find them
priced at $119.00. You're positive it's the same model because you printed
the page from the web site and it's in your hand.

Would you buy it for $119.00, or would you tell an employee that something
was fishy about the price?

In article >,
"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:

> Let's say you were looking for a Cuisinart stand mixer. You check the Bed,
> Bath & Beyond web site and see a model you like for $349.00. You call the
> store to be sure they have them in stock. You get to the store and find them
> priced at $119.00. You're positive it's the same model because you printed
> the page from the web site and it's in your hand.
>
> Would you buy it for $119.00, or would you tell an employee that something
> was fishy about the price?

I'd pay the $119 and be grateful that sometimes online and in-store
prices are not the same and that for once I got the break.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com - Fair baking

"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>
>> Let's say you were looking for a Cuisinart stand mixer. You check the
>> Bed,
>> Bath & Beyond web site and see a model you like for $349.00. You call the
>> store to be sure they have them in stock. You get to the store and find
>> them
>> priced at $119.00. You're positive it's the same model because you
>> printed
>> the page from the web site and it's in your hand.
>>
>> Would you buy it for $119.00, or would you tell an employee that
>> something
>> was fishy about the price?
>
> I'd pay the $119 and be grateful that sometimes online and in-store
> prices are not the same and that for once I got the break.


Right. And, I'm sure Terry the OP would do exactly the same thing. Now, I
would like to here

*******FROM HER ONLY*********

what the difference is between what she would do, and what her client did.

*******FROM HER ONLY*********
*******FROM HER ONLY*********
*******FROM HER ONLY*********

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
...
> "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>>
>>> Let's say you were looking for a Cuisinart stand mixer. You check the
>>> Bed,
>>> Bath & Beyond web site and see a model you like for $349.00. You call
>>> the
>>> store to be sure they have them in stock. You get to the store and find
>>> them
>>> priced at $119.00. You're positive it's the same model because you
>>> printed
>>> the page from the web site and it's in your hand.
>>>
>>> Would you buy it for $119.00, or would you tell an employee that
>>> something
>>> was fishy about the price?
>>
>> I'd pay the $119 and be grateful that sometimes online and in-store
>> prices are not the same and that for once I got the break.
>
>
> Right. And, I'm sure Terry the OP would do exactly the same thing. Now, I
> would like to here

HERE??? OR HEAR???????
>
> *******FROM HER ONLY*********

Kiss my ass
>
> what the difference is between what she would do, and what her client did.

She has you kill-filed. Get over it
>
> *******FROM HER ONLY*********
~~~~~~~~KISS MY ASS~~~~~~~~~~~
> *******FROM HER ONLY*********

>>>>>>>KISS MY ASS, JOE-BLOWROOM<<<<<<<<<<<<<
WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ANYONE WHAT AND WHEN THEY CAN
POST?????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???

> *******FROM HER ONLY*********
>YEAH, RIGHT

"Sammy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's say you were looking for a Cuisinart stand mixer. You check the
>>>> Bed,
>>>> Bath & Beyond web site and see a model you like for $349.00. You call
>>>> the
>>>> store to be sure they have them in stock. You get to the store and find
>>>> them
>>>> priced at $119.00. You're positive it's the same model because you
>>>> printed
>>>> the page from the web site and it's in your hand.
>>>>
>>>> Would you buy it for $119.00, or would you tell an employee that
>>>> something
>>>> was fishy about the price?
>>>
>>> I'd pay the $119 and be grateful that sometimes online and in-store
>>> prices are not the same and that for once I got the break.
>>
>>
>> Right. And, I'm sure Terry the OP would do exactly the same thing. Now, I
>> would like to here
>
> HERE??? OR HEAR???????

You never make mistakes.



>> *******FROM HER ONLY*********
>
> Kiss my ass
>>
>> what the difference is between what she would do, and what her client
>> did.
>
> She has you kill-filed. Get over it


Maybe, maybe not. Are you spying on her computer?

In article >,
"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:

> "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
> >
> >> Let's say you were looking for a Cuisinart stand mixer. You check
> >> the Bed, Bath & Beyond web site and see a model you like for
> >> $349.00. You call the store to be sure they have them in stock.
> >> You get to the store and find them priced at $119.00. You're
> >> positive it's the same model because you printed the page from the
> >> web site and it's in your hand.

> >> Would you buy it for $119.00, or would you tell an employee that
> >> something was fishy about the price?

> > I'd pay the $119 and be grateful that sometimes online and in-store
> > prices are not the same and that for once I got the break.

> Right. And, I'm sure Terry the OP would do exactly the same thing. Now, I
> would like to here
>
> *******FROM HER ONLY*********
>
> what the difference is between what she would do, and what her client did.
>
> *******FROM HER ONLY*********
> *******FROM HER ONLY*********
> *******FROM HER ONLY*********

Joe, her posts include email reply information. I'm thinking that if
you want a private exchange with her, you shouldn't post in a public
place.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com - Fair baking

"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>
>> "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Let's say you were looking for a Cuisinart stand mixer. You check
>> >> the Bed, Bath & Beyond web site and see a model you like for
>> >> $349.00. You call the store to be sure they have them in stock.
>> >> You get to the store and find them priced at $119.00. You're
>> >> positive it's the same model because you printed the page from the
>> >> web site and it's in your hand.
>
>> >> Would you buy it for $119.00, or would you tell an employee that
>> >> something was fishy about the price?
>
>> > I'd pay the $119 and be grateful that sometimes online and in-store
>> > prices are not the same and that for once I got the break.
>
>> Right. And, I'm sure Terry the OP would do exactly the same thing. Now, I
>> would like to here
>>
>> *******FROM HER ONLY*********
>>
>> what the difference is between what she would do, and what her client
>> did.
>>
>> *******FROM HER ONLY*********
>> *******FROM HER ONLY*********
>> *******FROM HER ONLY*********
>
> Joe, her posts include email reply information. I'm thinking that if
> you want a private exchange with her, you shouldn't post in a public
> place.
> --
> -Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ


I was trying to ward off a 6000 message sub thread in which everyone except
her explains what THEY would do about a hot deal on a mixer. There is the
potential for hypocrisy and rationalization here, so I'm really curious.

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:

> Am I overreacting?
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

IMO, no. My mother always told me, if someone is gossiping *to* you,
they are also gossiping about you. Why would thieves be any different?
If somebody takes advantage of someone else's mistake, then they will
take advantage of you. I have made plenty of mistakes, but I would never
cheat anybody out of a nickel. I also would not want to do business with
someone who is that ethically bankrupt.

Becca

"Becca" > wrote in message
...
> Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
>
>> Am I overreacting? Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>
> IMO, no. My mother always told me, if someone is gossiping *to* you, they
> are also gossiping about you. Why would thieves be any different? If
> somebody takes advantage of someone else's mistake, then they will take
> advantage of you. I have made plenty of mistakes, but I would never cheat
> anybody out of a nickel. I also would not want to do business with someone
> who is that ethically bankrupt.
>
> Becca


Please provide your source which proves that the restaurant made a mistake.

On Aug 26, 11:28 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
> "Becca" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
>
> >> Am I overreacting? Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>
> > IMO, no. My mother always told me, if someone is gossiping *to* you, they
> > are also gossiping about you. Why would thieves be any different? If
> > somebody takes advantage of someone else's mistake, then they will take
> > advantage of you. I have made plenty of mistakes, but I would never cheat
> > anybody out of a nickel. I also would not want to do business with someone
> > who is that ethically bankrupt.
>
> > Becca
>
> Please provide your source which proves that the restaurant made a mistake.

If the diner failed to ask if it was a mistake then his actions are
dubious to say the least.

"John Kane" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Aug 26, 11:28 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>> "Becca" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
>>
>> >> Am I overreacting? Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>>
>> > IMO, no. My mother always told me, if someone is gossiping *to* you,
>> > they
>> > are also gossiping about you. Why would thieves be any different? If
>> > somebody takes advantage of someone else's mistake, then they will take
>> > advantage of you. I have made plenty of mistakes, but I would never
>> > cheat
>> > anybody out of a nickel. I also would not want to do business with
>> > someone
>> > who is that ethically bankrupt.
>>
>> > Becca
>>
>> Please provide your source which proves that the restaurant made a
>> mistake.
>
> If the diner failed to ask if it was a mistake then his actions are
> dubious to say the least.


Proofreading is an important skill, often neglected.

On Aug 27, 12:28 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
> "John Kane" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 26, 11:28 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
> >> "Becca" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
>
> >> >> Am I overreacting? Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>
> >> > IMO, no. My mother always told me, if someone is gossiping *to* you,
> >> > they
> >> > are also gossiping about you. Why would thieves be any different? If
> >> > somebody takes advantage of someone else's mistake, then they will take
> >> > advantage of you. I have made plenty of mistakes, but I would never
> >> > cheat
> >> > anybody out of a nickel. I also would not want to do business with
> >> > someone
> >> > who is that ethically bankrupt.
>
> >> > Becca
>
> >> Please provide your source which proves that the restaurant made a
> >> mistake.
>
> > If the diner failed to ask if it was a mistake then his actions are
> > dubious to say the least.
>
> Proofreading is an important skill, often neglected.

Yes, I believe the Great Bible was published with the commandment
"Thou shalt commit adultery." Mind you that was under Henry VIII so
maybe it was not a mistake.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 19:56:54 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

>As many of you know, I'm a paralegal in a law firm, which has little
>to do with the following, but just setting the scene. My boss was
>taken by a client to dinner the other night in LA after the execution
>of a successful contract. Mind you, the client has a 7 figure plus
>bank account, but tends to be a bit slow in paying his bills and a bit
>over interested in the cost of things or what he has paid for things.
>He also considers himself quite an oenophile.
>
>While he perused the wine list, he found what he was certain was a
>typo. Wine X, which is a favorite of his, was priced at $X7 and he was
>sure it should have been priced $200 more than that (I checked - he
>was right). He promptly ordered 4 bottles, 2 to take home. First of
>all, I wasn't aware that you could order wine in a restaurant as if it
>was a liquor store (this is southern California, so who knows). More
>importantly, I can sort of see ordering 1 bottle while pointing out to
>the staff that you think the price is a typo and you should at least
>get the one bottle at that price, but I was offended that he ordered
>several bottles and rather gleefully left thinking he had really put
>one over on the restaurant.
>
>My first reaction when my boss told me this story was that when we
>finish the current lawsuit, we not take on any more work for him. If
>he's willing to cheat a restaurant, he won't hesitate to cheat anyone
>else. And a client like that we do not need or want. My boss
>acknowledges my concerns, and says that he is more valuable to the
>client than the client is to us, so if I want to cross him off our
>client list, it's okay with him.
>
>Am I overreacting?
>
>Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

i don't see an ethical problem here. it's sort of a reverse 'buyer
beware.' you may say he's selfish in that two other people will not
get such a hot deal, but that's rather tender-hearted.

it's not like, say, he got $200 dollars over back in change and kept
it.

i wouldn't give him the boot, but i would proofread any contracts with
him very carefully.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:


> My first reaction when my boss told me this story was that when we
> finish the current lawsuit, we not take on any more work for him. If
> he's willing to cheat a restaurant, he won't hesitate to cheat anyone
> else. And a client like that we do not need or want. My boss
> acknowledges my concerns, and says that he is more valuable to the
> client than the client is to us, so if I want to cross him off our
> client list, it's okay with him.
>
> Am I overreacting?


I think so. The restaurant was willing to make the sale.

As others have mentioned, the restaurant may have bought this wine for
considerably cheaper, and might have a policy of not raising prices
based on current market price. Or more likely, they didn't notice.

I don't point out store errors that are in my favor. I figure that
makes up for the times I get overcharged, and it's a wash.

I wouldn't call it cheating - he just took advantage of a good deal,
as he saw it. No wonder he's well-heeled.

Maybe you're just a little envious that he got a deal and could afford
to make the purchase? If a relative or close friend related the same
story to you, would you think ill of him or her too, or rejoice in
their little coup?

I'd just let it go.

"val189" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I wouldn't call it cheating - he just took advantage of a good deal,
> as he saw it. No wonder he's well-heeled.


This is how Trump got started.

On Aug 26, 2:50?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
> "val189" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> >I wouldn't call it cheating - he just took advantage of a good deal,
> > as he saw it. No wonder he's well-heeled.
>
> This is how Trump got started.

Which Trump, Sr or Jr? The Sr worked his ass off. Jr. (The Donald)
got started by inheriting his father's wealth (not a crime)... he
never cheated anyone, and still hasn't, not ever, not a cent. I went
to High School with Donald Trump, he was the nicest guy you'd ever
want to meet, and smart! Donald Trump has always represented the
epitomy of high ethics.. and if ever there was a Robin Hood it's The
Donald... and no matter how his cards fall you will never ever hear
him whine. If Donald Trump ran for President gettinfg my vote would
be a no brainer, but he will never run for any political office, none
pay enough.

Sheldon

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Aug 26, 2:50?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>> "val189" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>> >I wouldn't call it cheating - he just took advantage of a good deal,
>> > as he saw it. No wonder he's well-heeled.
>>
>> This is how Trump got started.
>
> Which Trump, Sr or Jr? The Sr worked his ass off. Jr. (The Donald)
> got started by inheriting his father's wealth (not a crime)... he
> never cheated anyone, and still hasn't, not ever, not a cent. I went
> to High School with Donald Trump, he was the nicest guy you'd ever
> want to meet, and smart! Donald Trump has always represented the
> epitomy of high ethics.. and if ever there was a Robin Hood it's The
> Donald... and no matter how his cards fall you will never ever hear
> him whine. If Donald Trump ran for President gettinfg my vote would
> be a no brainer, but he will never run for any political office, none
> pay enough.
>
> Sheldon
>

That, and he'd have to share decisions with a bunch of ******s who don't
even read half the legislation they vote on, **IF** they even bother to show
up for work.

On Aug 25, 7:56 pm, Terry Pulliam Burd >
wrote:
> As many of you know, I'm a paralegal in a law firm, [snip]
> ....
> My first reaction when my boss told me this story was that when we
> finish the current lawsuit, we not take on any more work for him. If
> he's willing to cheat a restaurant, he won't hesitate to cheat anyone
> else. And a client like that we do not need or want. [snip]
>
> Am I overreacting?
>
I think so, in two ways. First, ethical and competent defense
attorneys take on guilty clients all the time. Civil attorneys take
on clients with questionable positions/claims all the time. Think
about why that is, and note that most ethics professors will
comfortably argue that it's a good thing.

Secondly, as the other responses show, the situation is not that far
removed from alert bargain shopping. "Cheating" is too rigid a
judgment -aem.

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:

> Am I overreacting?

If your law firm were doing criminal cases, representing thieves,
murderers and such, would you cross them all off your client list,
driving the firm into bancruptcy?

ObWine: So, what wine was it?! This is what is actually important here,
woman!

Victor

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:52:08 +0200, (Victor Sack)
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

>Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>
>> Am I overreacting?
>
>If your law firm were doing criminal cases, representing thieves,
>murderers and such, would you cross them all off your client list,
>driving the firm into bancruptcy?

We do civil law (constitutional law, primarily First and Fifth
Amendment). As clean as hands get in law.

I just thought the greed factor with the client was a bit smarmy. I've
pointed out obviously mismarked merchandise to clerks. Not doing so
passes the cost of the mistake along to the rest of us.

And even if the price marked had been correct and the client mistook
it for the more expensive vintage (which I don't think is the case, as
I looked around with Google and an '89 vintage can be $200+), glomming
onto 4 bottles still shows a sleaze factor, IMHO.
>
>ObWine: So, what wine was it?! This is what is actually important here,
>woman!

It was a 1989 Caymus Vineyards Special Selection Cabernet Sauvignon.
The client is from New York, so their prices might be higher, but it's
still a pricey bottle of wine.

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" > wrote in message
>
> We do civil law (constitutional law, primarily First and Fifth
> Amendment). As clean as hands get in law.
>

Fifth Amendment? As in "I'm not talking because I can say the wrong thing
(like the truth) and get my ass in trouble?" Yeah, that's clean.


>
> And even if the price marked had been correct and the client mistook
> it for the more expensive vintage (which I don't think is the case, as
> I looked around with Google and an '89 vintage can be $200+), glomming
> onto 4 bottles still shows a sleaze factor, IMHO.

Have you called the restaurant yet? What did they say? His intentions may
have been borderline sleazy, but he may have gotten what he paird for and
the seller may be quite happy to sell at that price. Supermarkets often
have loss leaders and I take advantage of them whenever I can.

Unless we can determine that an actual error took place, it is only your
speculation that the client did wrong. Let's get that clarified

On Aug 26, 10:58 pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > We do civil law (constitutional law, primarily First and Fifth
> > Amendment). As clean as hands get in law.
>
> Fifth Amendment? As in "I'm not talking because I can say the wrong thing
> (like the truth) and get my ass in trouble?" Yeah, that's clean.
>
>
>
> > And even if the price marked had been correct and the client mistook
> > it for the more expensive vintage (which I don't think is the case, as
> > I looked around with Google and an '89 vintage can be $200+), glomming
> > onto 4 bottles still shows a sleaze factor, IMHO.
>
> Have you called the restaurant yet? What did they say? His intentions may
> have been borderline sleazy, but he may have gotten what he paird for and
> the seller may be quite happy to sell at that price. Supermarkets often
> have loss leaders and I take advantage of them whenever I can.
>
> Unless we can determine that an actual error took place, it is only your
> speculation that the client did wrong. Let's get that clarified

No the actual price at which the restaurant was willing to sell is not
the issue. It is the somewhat dubuios willlingness of the diner to
take advantage of what might be a clerical error. A simple questions
like: "This seems like an awfully low price, is it correct" would be
all that was needed.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

In article >,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
> >
> > We do civil law (constitutional law, primarily First and Fifth
> > Amendment). As clean as hands get in law.
> >
>
> Fifth Amendment? As in "I'm not talking because I can say the wrong thing
> (like the truth) and get my ass in trouble?" Yeah, that's clean.


"Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...rights.html#am
endmentv

That covers a lot more ground.


> Unless we can determine that an actual error took place, it is only your
> speculation that the client did wrong. Let's get that clarified

I agree, but I certainly don't know the details. If I buy something on
sale at the advertised price, I certainly feel no guilt. If I get a
good deal on something, I shouldn't feel guilty. If the guy gloated a
lot over how he put something over on the restaurant, I might be
reluctant to do further business with him.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:31:29 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>
>> "Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > We do civil law (constitutional law, primarily First and Fifth
>> > Amendment). As clean as hands get in law.
>> >
>>
>> Fifth Amendment? As in "I'm not talking because I can say the wrong thing
>> (like the truth) and get my ass in trouble?" Yeah, that's clean.
>
>
>"Amendment V
>
>No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
>crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in
>cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
>actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
>subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
>limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
>against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
>due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
>without just compensation."
>
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...rights.html#am
>endmentv
>
>That covers a lot more ground.
>

edwin obviously thinks the constitution is for wimps, and people
should be forced to testify against themselves. that's why torture is
such a good thing.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:58:22 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

>
>"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
>>
>> We do civil law (constitutional law, primarily First and Fifth
>> Amendment). As clean as hands get in law.
>>
>
>Fifth Amendment? As in "I'm not talking because I can say the wrong thing
>(like the truth) and get my ass in trouble?" Yeah, that's clean.

No, as in the part of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

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" > wrote in message
>
> No, as in the part of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "nor shall
> private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
turning it over to developers.

On Aug 26, 5:52 pm, (Victor Sack) wrote:
> Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>
> > Am I overreacting?
>
> If your law firm were doing criminal cases, representing thieves,
> murderers and such, would you cross them all off your client list,
> driving the firm into bancruptcy?

> ObWine: So, what wine was it?! This is what is actually important here,
> woman!
>
> Victor

Hey this is RFC not RFW. We can only ask for the name of the wine if
Terry can provide the nutritional value of the wine.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:24:24 -0700, John Kane >
wrote:

>On Aug 26, 5:52 pm, (Victor Sack) wrote:
>> Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>>
>> > Am I overreacting?
>>
>> If your law firm were doing criminal cases, representing thieves,
>> murderers and such, would you cross them all off your client list,
>> driving the firm into bancruptcy?
>
>> ObWine: So, what wine was it?! This is what is actually important here,
>> woman!
>>
>> Victor
>
>Hey this is RFC not RFW. We can only ask for the name of the wine if
>Terry can provide the nutritional value of the wine.
>
>John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

or if we think the tasting was rigged by trader joe's.

your pal,
blake

John Kane > wrote:

> (Victor Sack) wrote:
>
> > ObWine: So, what wine was it?! This is what is actually important here,
> > woman!
>
> Hey this is RFC not RFW. We can only ask for the name of the wine if
> Terry can provide the nutritional value of the wine.

Heh.

Actually, there is no rfw. There is rfd (rec.food.drink), but it is all
but dead. There is also alt.food.wine, a most admirable newsgroup, but
it is outside of the Big 8 hierarchies. The rec.food.* hierarchy lacks
a basic, root newsgroup, such as rec.food or rec.food.misc, so rfc is
effectively such a newsgroup, having been at one time the only group in
the hierarchy. So, everything that has to do with food or drink is on
topic here, even if it may be more on topic in other food newsgroups.
This may or may not be unfortunate, but, short of a reorganisation,
there is nothing to be done, anyway.

Victor

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>
>Am I overreacting?

No. You are correct. He's a chiseler and he'll screw your
company one day.

Rich people are by and large cheating someone at something.
We legalize a lot of that cheating, but the reason we
legalized it is usually that someone rich cheated and got
the law changed, and pays a tithe to the lobbying
industry to keep it that way.

Not one rich person is to be trusted.

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>> Am I overreacting?
>
> No. You are correct. He's a chiseler and he'll screw your
> company one day.
>
> Rich people are by and large cheating someone at something.
> We legalize a lot of that cheating, but the reason we
> legalized it is usually that someone rich cheated and got
> the law changed, and pays a tithe to the lobbying
> industry to keep it that way.
>
> Not one rich person is to be trusted.
>
> --Blair


You're absolutely right... but what is the threshold for someone being
considered "rich"?

Bob