Judges are faced with big questions every day. They have to decide if someone is guilty of murder, or which parent a child should live with. Every now and then, though, they’re faced with something that’s just, well, bizarre. Witness this example from Massachusetts:
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.
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.
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.
The difference, the judge ruled, comes down to two slices of bread versus one tortilla.
“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.
Well, I’m glad we cleared that one up.
H/T: Brendan Loy
November 13th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Bah, hat tip, David K. the guestblogger who posted it
November 13th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Despite all the blogging about this de minimis case, I have yet to see anyone note the only interesting legal principle that applies (and one that I hope the judge followed): the canon of construction that an ambiguity in the terms of a contract should be construed against the party that drafted it.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
David,
Heh, yeah, my bad