MR. CHOW OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STE. JOUR AZUR S.A., Henri Gault and Christian Millau, Defendants-Appellants.
(1985)
Background
In 1980, Henri Gault and Christian Millau of “Gault/Millau Guide to New York City” sent an advocate Yves Bridault to review Mr.Chow located 324 E 54th St, New York City. In his initial review he explained how Mr. Chow had incompetent wait times, prep times, preparation risks, raw food served and disgracing ambience. He criticized Mr. Chow for their ways of business and included advice on how to run a better restaurant by enabling help from “Chinatown” outlets. In 1982, Mr.Chow of New York decided to take action against Gault and Millau stating that the review Yves wrote was deficient in truth and contained “false” and “defamatory” allegations. He filed for $10,000 in compensatory damages as well as $250,000 in punitive damages. In plaintiff’s account, they denied the allegations and claimed that they could provide live demonstration of Mr. Chow chef, Sik Chung Lam prepares their specialty pancakes and a video footage of Mr. Chow’s chefs …show more content…
With the true or false statements that were translated in the review, the jury had to decide whether there was chance to prove indeed if the food is cold and raw when served or if the rice was truly soaked in oil or was it a use of symbolized words to describe the perspective of Mr.Bridault at Mr. Chow’s. The language used was also discussed for the persuasion of the review to the common reader. Precedence also was considered in a decision “Greenbelt” in which “non-actionable statements do not become actionable merely because they are expressed in the form of rhetorical hyperbole”. As of matters of malice, it is argued that Mr.Chow doesn’t fit the characteristics of a public figure in order to equip the charge in the United States Court of
v.
STE. JOUR AZUR S.A., Henri Gault and Christian Millau, Defendants-Appellants.
(1985)
Background
In 1980, Henri Gault and Christian Millau of “Gault/Millau Guide to New York City” sent an advocate Yves Bridault to review Mr.Chow located 324 E 54th St, New York City. In his initial review he explained how Mr. Chow had incompetent wait times, prep times, preparation risks, raw food served and disgracing ambience. He criticized Mr. Chow for their ways of business and included advice on how to run a better restaurant by enabling help from “Chinatown” outlets. In 1982, Mr.Chow of New York decided to take action against Gault and Millau stating that the review Yves wrote was deficient in truth and contained “false” and “defamatory” allegations. He filed for $10,000 in compensatory damages as well as $250,000 in punitive damages. In plaintiff’s account, they denied the allegations and claimed that they could provide live demonstration of Mr. Chow chef, Sik Chung Lam prepares their specialty pancakes and a video footage of Mr. Chow’s chefs …show more content…
With the true or false statements that were translated in the review, the jury had to decide whether there was chance to prove indeed if the food is cold and raw when served or if the rice was truly soaked in oil or was it a use of symbolized words to describe the perspective of Mr.Bridault at Mr. Chow’s. The language used was also discussed for the persuasion of the review to the common reader. Precedence also was considered in a decision “Greenbelt” in which “non-actionable statements do not become actionable merely because they are expressed in the form of rhetorical hyperbole”. As of matters of malice, it is argued that Mr.Chow doesn’t fit the characteristics of a public figure in order to equip the charge in the United States Court of