Judge rules: Burrito is not a sandwich

[mondo joe]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_fe_st/burrito_or_sandwich_2

WORCESTER, Mass. - Is a burrito a sandwich? The Panera Bread Co. bakery-and-cafe chain says yes. But a judge said no, ruling against Panera in its bid to prevent a Mexican restaurant from moving into the same shopping mall.
****
But Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Locke cited Webster's Dictionary as well as testimony from a chef and a former high-ranking federal agriculture official in ruling that Qdoba's burritos and other offerings are not sandwiches.
***
"A sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans," Locke wrote in a decision released last week.



At last a Massachusetts judge interested in preserving tradition! ;-)

[tk2kewl]

1. Those damn Massachusetts activist judges!

:silly:

[knitter4democracy]

2. We have a Panera near a Qdoba.

There doesn't seem to be a problem. Why would they even waste the legal fees on something this stupid?

[mcscajun]

8. Now that you mention it, so do I.

They reside about a hundred yards from each other in the same strip mall.

I've only been to the Panera's a few times, and have yet to go to Qdoba's.

[Ravenseye]

15. Big reason

The Panera had a clause in their lease promising them that the mall would not rent out to any other 'sandwich' shop. The whole deal with this case was 'are wraps sandwiches?' The judge ruled that they aren't sandwiches, hence the mall wasn't breaking the lease with the Panera by allowing in a burrito place. Panera should have phrased their clause more clearly in retrospect, but there is probably a good reason it's there.

The placement of these restaurants, or any store really, is dependent alot on traffic. Foot traffic, car traffic, etc, and how much the area can support. If you go to a specifc area and there are 4 fast food restuarants it's unlikely that a fifth would go there unless the actuall traffic depended on it. IF those 4 are struggling to make ends meet, the chances of a fifth joining them are slim. The mall the Panera was located in was most likely determined to not have enough traffic to warrant more than one restaurnat of the 'stop in and get a quick sandwich' type restaurants which include all fast food chains. THe mall secured the Panera to come to their mall by putting that provision in the lease in order to assure them they would be secure in the space. If they hadn't obtained that provision they most likely would never have gone their in the first place.

What Qdoba is doing, and they're doing it all over the country, is putting their restaurants in locations like this, that are highly competitive, yet theyr'e letting these restaurants operate at a loss for a long term, in order to drive out other competition. THe four places struggling to survive? One of them will go under, and then the Qdboa can start being profitable again.

By putting the Qdoba in the mall, the mall itself is backstabbing Panera, Qdoba is trying to engage in a war for the mall, and the Panera is getting screwed multiple ways.

If they could have won their case they would have been assured of not having to compete in an unprofitable environment on an ongoing basis, because if the Qdoba gives up, someone else will now move in (chipotle, baja fresh, etc) making their presence their unprofitable for the long term. THis ruling basically measn the Panera there goes out of business.

[mondo joe]

21. But the whole point of such a clause is to limit competition within a category.

It's not to prohibit alternatives.

[Ravenseye]

25. That's why it came down to the definition of a sandwich

The limitation of competition within a category is what I'm talking about. Making them the only place to offer sandiwches prevents, and was probably intially intended for places like MacDonalds, Burger King, Subway, etc, and not for places like Manchu Wok, or a Pizza place. The clause wasn't for 'any other eating establishment' just a category.

The question was basically does a burrito/taco count in the same category as a sandwich/burger/sub or in it's own, like pizza, or plated food?

I think they are sandwiches. The judge though otherwise. The Panera should have had a stricter provision in their lease which defined 'sandwich' themselves.

[mondo joe]

28. You've introduced a notion of CATEGORIES of food. Their clause was clearly

not about a category of food, but a specific food: sandwiches.

They had their day in court.

[Ravenseye]

30. I'm sorry

I thought I was allowed to discuss it and have my own opinions. Sorry. I'll stop.

[mondo joe]

32. I missed the part of my post in which I said you weren't allowed either.

Just liked I missed the part of the clause that mentioned categories of food.

[knitter4democracy]

34. I didn't know Qdoba's history on this.

That makes more sense to me, then.

I have no problem with the "sandwich place" clause, since people are less likely to change their sandwich place, and the traffic can only handle so much. I just think it's weird that they're assuming they'll lose customers to Qdoba. Panera's really good food. I won't eat at Qdoba.

[Canuckistanian]

3. I'm waiting for a McDonalds ruling

That their products aren't really considered "food".

[ms liberty]

4. God I love Panera's cinnamon crunch bagels...

But we don't have one nearby - of course, I live in the country, so we don't have anything nearby!

[Crankie Avalon]

5. And a danish is not a donut!!! Let freedom ring...

...or "reign" as the Ass-Faced Weasel would say.

[mcscajun]

6. Panera's doesn't even sell Wraps, so their "beef" with Qdoba is

about competition, pure and simple. They don't want any. Like anyone is going to wander into Panera's if they feel like something Mexican-style, or wander into Qdoba's Mexican Grill when they're yearning for a chicken salad sandwich.

Panera has a clause in its lease that prevents the White City Shopping Center in Shrewsbury from renting to another sandwich shop. Panera tried to invoke that clause to stop the opening of an Qdoba Mexican Grill.

If Panera had put Wraps on their Sandwich menu or Anywhere on their menu perhaps they'd have had some heft in their case; as it is, nope.

[Ravenseye]

11. It's a bullshit ruling

Though the Panera should have gotten a better definition in their lease. The shopping center they're in really fucked them over with this. If there isn't enough foot traffic to warrant two restaurants it'll inevitably drive one or the other out of business, in this case most likely the Panera.

Ruling that 'wraps' aren't sandwiches is pretty crazy in my opinion. Simply because they're not made with white bread, who the hell is this judge to say theyr'e not? THey're an alternative to sandwiches made from bread.

I think there's plenty of blame to go around here, but I side with the Panera on this one. They had it in their lease, and going the route of 'wraps aren't sandwiches' is pretty weak and bs.

[Little Wing]

16. Bread bowls are meat/veggies within bread.

Do they count as a sandwich? The two Georges, Costanza and Steinbrenner, would like to know. :-)

[Ravenseye]

19. heh

No it's a soup. ;)

The wrap/burrito though, containing sandwich filling, that you can hold in one hand to eat, is plainly a sandwich.

[mondo joe]

18. Who the hell is the judge? Just the person required to make the call.

[Ravenseye]

20. Yeah you're right

Even though they're refered to as sandwiches everywhere, because this one judge thinks a sandwich belongs between two pieces of white bread, and nothing else...

It was his call, but it was a bad one.

The Panera will appeal if they can.

[mondo joe]

22. The question is what is understood to be a "sandwich".

In court papers, Panera, a St. Louis-based chain of more than 900 cafes, argued for a broad definition of a sandwich, saying that a flour tortilla is bread and that a food product with bread and a filling is a sandwich.

Qdoba, owned by San Diego-based Jack in the Box Inc., called food experts to testify on its behalf.

Among them was Cambridge chef Chris Schlesinger, who said in an affidavit: "I know of no chef or culinary historian who would call a burrito a sandwich. Indeed, the notion would be absurd to any credible chef or culinary historian."

[Ravenseye]

29. It is a corporate battle

It affects me, by way of some of my clients which are smaller local places which end up having to compete with these big dogs. Personally, I don't care one whit about Panera or Qdboa, but these sorts of rulings do affect the smaller businesses.

Plus it's not about what a culinary historian would define as a 'sandwich' but what the contemporary definition would be in practice. What does it mean to get a sandwich, as opposed to something not defined as one. What some snotty chef thinks is meaningless. It matters how actual people would react to it. How it would affect which store they would go into.

[mondo joe]

31. I can only say I have never in my life used SANDWICH and BURRITO interchangably.

:-)

[ET Awful]

33. Well, the dictionary.com definition reads:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
sand‧wich  /ˈsændwɪtʃ, ˈsæn-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. two or more slices of bread or the like with a layer of meat, fish, cheese, etc., between each pair.
2. open sandwich.
3. something resembling or suggesting a sandwich, as something in horizontal layers: a plywood sandwich.
–verb (used with object)
4. to put into a sandwich.
5. to insert between two other things: to sandwich an appointment between two board meetings.

[BlooInBloo]

23. Um, where *exactly* did the ruling say that his rationale depended....

... on the lack of white bread?

It's a conservative extension of the "normal, intuitive" notion of a sandwich to say either way. In an obvious sense, it's more conceptually economical to come down on the "no" side.

[ET Awful]

27. I've eaten at that very Panera many times, it is never empty.

They have a LOT of customers and are crowded every time I've been there. I doubt seriously that they are in danger of losing any business.

I've been there weeknights, mid-day during the week, weekends, etc. It's always busy.

I wouldn't leap to any immediate conclusions that having a Mexican food joint in the same shopping center would really harm them a great deal.

There are several other places to eat within easy walking distance of that Panera, and none of them has forced Panera out of business yet.

The place is not in a mall, it's in a strip mall, surrounded by several businesses ranging from a Hallmark/Paper Store to a dollar store, to a gym. In the shopping center directly adjacent is a Michaels Arts and Crafts, another dollar store, etc. There are dozens of businesses nearby, a hospital (with a large staff and with med students, many of whom I've seen at the Panera in question).

Their business is in no danger whatsoever.

[rockymountaindem]

7. There's a Panera and a Qdoba in the same shopping center by my house

I don't get what the problem is.

[Ravenseye]

10. "fast food" restaurant competition is feirce

Though normally these types of lawsuits aren't brought by other large corporations, but smaller local chains or individual restaurnats. I have a few of these smaller chains as clients, and the type of competition they get from Qdoba, Chipolte, etc lately has been pretty crazy. Chipotle for instance is owned by McDonald's and they come into an area and slam advertise the hell out of the place. TV. Radio. Flyers. Billboards. You name it. Spend in ways the local places can't. Then they intentionally run at a loss in order to drive local business out of business.

It's not impossible to overcome it, but it does make competition very difficult. When you're working one streetcorner, and you've got your restaurant, and your competition can lose 10 times as much money as you make in order to drive you out. The Wal-martization of america.

The strange part here is that it's a Panera. I guess it must be a franchise owner who was promised a certain level of non-compete in order to place his restaurant there, and he's barely scraping by as it is. Losing this ruling probably means that panera will close inside of a year, probably 6 months, leaving only the Qdoba.

The one by your house might have enough traffic to warrant two, this one might not.

[Katzenjammer]

14. They better not run at a loss---that's as illegal as hell

...though the law hasn't been enforced since Clinton took office in '93.

[Ravenseye]

17. They do it all the time

It's illegal in some ways, but in others there are plenty of ways around it. As long as the specific restaurnats are established with a large enough pot, are run on the level, it's ok for them to lose money week after week. THey just keep drawing from their establishment pot. Then national advertising budget's are exterior to this, so they can then run the new place on a loss for well over a year without anyone batting an eye, while at the same time spending millions on advertising that an opponent can't.

Happens every day. Can't even recall when the last time it was enforced.

[LizW]

12. On the same street

in my town. :shrug:

[BulletproofLandshark]

9. I've never heard of either one of these franchises.

But either one would be a welcome sight here in Waffle House-Land

[bryant69]

13. What about a Chalupa?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bmbmd]

24. Well, in the world of crossword puzzles

"Mexican Sandwich" is a taco or a burrito.

[mondo joe]

26. That's loco. A Mexican Sandwich is a Torta.