Sanook Thai Caption: Fresh, raw steak!

 

It looks like another case of the customer always being in the wrong.

 

Sanook reported on a Facebook post by a customer called "Noppharat Aef".

 

He ordered four packs of chicken steak, pork chop and fish steak from a Lad Prao restaurant for 681 baht.

 

But none of the items could be consumed as they were all raw inside.

 

Join our daily ASEAN NOW Thailand Newsletter - Click to subscribe

 

He contacted the shop who refused to take responsibility claiming in a text exchange that the customer had originally said the items were burnt. 

 

The shop told the customer they would not get a refund - they would see them in court rather than do that. 

 

-- © Copyright  ASEAN NOW 2022-04-25

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

- Follow ASEAN NOW on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

 

Get your business in front of millions of customers who read ASEAN NOW with an interest in Thailand every month - email [email protected] for more information

Sheer arrogance. 

4 minutes ago, MaiDong said:

Sheer arrogance. 

Ignorance.

OK... a mistake... perhaps a really low quality restaurant anyway.

 

But.. there is no incentive whatsoever to improve things when the draconian defamation laws are in place.

 

People are unable to leave factual feed back without risk of being sued - this juvenile mindset enabled by laws is perpetuating Thailand's immature and unprofessional attitudes towards honesty. 

 

---

 

The silly thing about this is, had the shop responded well, apologised and gave them a full refund fewer people would know about it... (I’m sure locals can find out what shop it is).

 

Just like the SeaView hotel in Koh Chang who sued the guy who left a poor report in TripAdvisor - who out of anyone who does their research when staying somewhere would ever stay at the SeaView hotel ?

 

 

Forget about refund...In cases like this one can leave an honest feedback telling things how the are with pictures if possible, and let the restaurant worry about the consequences...

My father always told me ," The customer is always right ", 

even when they are not , and that's how i ran my business ,

if you lose a customer you lose money, and in this day and age with

the Internet even more important ,  the trouble is in this country

you cannot name and shame ,that's why they don't seem to care.

regards Worgeordie

14 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

OK... a mistake... perhaps a really low quality restaurant anyway.

 

But.. there is no incentive whatsoever to improve things when the draconian defamation laws are in place.

 

People are unable to leave factual feed back without risk of being sued - this juvenile mindset enabled by laws is perpetuating Thailand's immature and unprofessional attitudes towards honesty. 

 

---

 

The silly thing about this is, had the shop responded well, apologised and gave them a full refund fewer people would know about it... (I’m sure locals can find out what shop it is).

 

Just like the SeaView hotel in Koh Chang who sued the guy who left a poor report in TripAdvisor - who out of anyone who does their research when staying somewhere would ever stay at the SeaView hotel ?

 

 

Me

 

My favourite hotel on the island.

Well let them go to court...keep the evidence , serve them to Judge....

Justice will be served!!! Sizzlerrrrrr

2 minutes ago, RandiRona said:

Well let them go to court...keep the evidence , serve them to Judge....

Justice will be served!!! Sizzlerrrrrr

Erm... actually it wouldn’t...  

 

It is not a defence that comments placed into the public domain are factual.

Thailands draconian defamation laws only need to prove intent to ‘defame’ a person or entity.

Weird, I've never even seen a stake made out of chicken and pork. I wonder if it's anything like a steak.

7 minutes ago, RafPinto said:

Me

 

My favourite hotel on the island.

Interesting... I guess there are many more people happy to stay in a resort which publicly sued someone who left critical comments of the management and the manner in which they operated. 

That said - it was also reported that this was somewhat of a which hunt by the foreigner who reported the poor service. 

 

 

In this case... many more people will go to this restaurant and receive extremely poor quality food (uncooked) becuase their continued poor service is enabled by the defamation laws. 

Next time someone could be quite ill.

 

Restaurant wants his head on a stake for complaining.

58 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

My father always told me ," The customer is always right ", 

even when they are not , and that's how i ran my business ,

if you lose a customer you lose money, and in this day and age with

the Internet even more important ,  the trouble is in this country

you cannot name and shame ,that's why they don't seem to care.

regards Worgeordie

But then they complain that they are losing customers. Justified complaining helps an industry by pointing out the areas they need to improve upon. Such comments should be taken as good advice by the business owner

Devil's Advocate in me wants to point out, one person's version of medium to well done, may not be what the other person considers 'cooked'.

 

Since article mentions charring on the outside, then possible cooked, safe to eat, on the inside, but not to the customers liking.

 

The wife wasn't partial to my serving temp in the beginning of my steak preparing.  She has come to realize, it was not raw, simply med, and now appreciates a mix of outside charring & redness in the center, as long as 55C ish internal temp for beef.

 

I find the locals overly cautious, for good reason, and prefer meats to be well done.

Edited April 25, 20224 yr by KhunLA

1 hour ago, ezzra said:

Forget about refund...In cases like this one can leave an honest feedback telling things how the are with pictures if possible, and let the restaurant worry about the consequences...

Unfortunately doing that in Thailand would leave one open to prosecution for defamation. As has already occurred in some cases.

15 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Devil's Advocate in me wants to point out, one person's version of medium to well done, may not be what the other person considers 'cooked'.

 

Since article mentions charring on the outside, then possible cooked, safe to eat, on the inside, but not to the customers liking.

 

The wife wasn't partial to my serving temp in the beginning of my steak preparing.  She has come to realize, it was not raw, simply med, and now appreciates a mix of outside charring & redness in the center, as long as 55C ish internal temp for beef.

 

I find the locals overly cautious, for good reason, and prefer meats to be well done.

From t he photographs, clearly raw. The pork raw altogether the steak somewhat cooked on the outside but completely raw -- not rare - inside.

1 hour ago, webfact said:

He contacted the shop who refused to take responsibility claiming in a text exchange that the customer had originally said the items were burnt.

So the claim is they said we are not responsible for the food being raw because we burnt it? Odd stance to take if true. 

 

1 hour ago, webfact said:

The shop told the customer they would not get a refund - they would see them in court rather than do that.

Again seems an odd stance to take if true. 

did he ask for "well done"?

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

Forget about refund...In cases like this one can leave an honest feedback telling things how the are with pictures if possible, and let the restaurant worry about the consequences...

Problem is  the defamation laws apply even if the bad review is justified and can be proven to be true. Its that sick. Its a bit like libel laws in the USA where someone can be libelled and if he takes the libeller to court he has to prove they were wrong, not the other way around. Stupid.

3 hours ago, webfact said:

The shop told the customer they would not get a refund - they would see them in court rather than do that. 

So presumably with the evidence in hand they will?

3 hours ago, ezzra said:

Forget about refund...In cases like this one can leave an honest feedback telling things how the are with pictures if possible, and let the restaurant worry about the consequences...

In Thailand that constitutes deformation... crazy laws.

The best thing they could do is take the food to the nearest FDA agency and have it tested.. then go to press with the evidence.

Edited April 25, 20224 yr by hotchilli

3 hours ago, MaiDong said:

Sheer arrogance. 

Raw chicken and raw pork, take your pick, can easily kill you over here. Where the bacteria grows at such a high rate. 

Don't eat it, don't complain, never go back.

If the restaurant does that to multiple customers, it will be out of business soon enough.

All the customer has to do is post a photo of the restaurant next to a photo of the food and simply write 'My meal at so-and-so'. Then let those who see it make up their own mind. The customer hasn't complained, hasn't said anything bad about the place, just presented the facts for people to make up their own mind.

 

I have a travel writer and restaurant and hotel critic friend in Australia who has publicised this pathetic and illogical law that protects the guilty and damages the customer. Just another nail.

 

Does any positive news ever come out of Thailand? I can't remember any.

Edited April 25, 20224 yr by Bangkok Barry

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

OK... a mistake... perhaps a really low quality restaurant anyway.

 

But.. there is no incentive whatsoever to improve things when the draconian defamation laws are in place.

 

People are unable to leave factual feed back without risk of being sued - this juvenile mindset enabled by laws is perpetuating Thailand's immature and unprofessional attitudes towards honesty. 

 

---

 

The silly thing about this is, had the shop responded well, apologised and gave them a full refund fewer people would know about it... (I’m sure locals can find out what shop it is).

 

Just like the SeaView hotel in Koh Chang who sued the guy who left a poor report in TripAdvisor - who out of anyone who does their research when staying somewhere would ever stay at the SeaView hotel ?

 

 

yep sadly no name and shame here ..they can get away with anything 

There at two issues here. The ridiculously cowardly defamation laws, passed by half men, who were bought off. And face. Face is rife with self doubt, and by subscribing to this weakness, a man or a woman is made a far lesser person. I consider the practice of face to be the polar opposite of the practice of Buddhism, which teaches the need for introspection, contemplation, owning up to a problem, and taking responsibility for issues, problems and tragedies that you create in life.

6 hours ago, Myran said:

Weird, I've never even seen a stake made out of chicken and pork. I wonder if it's anything like a steak.

No, but good for killing vampires.

I would say to avoid defamation laws.  " Hmm this looks good and I bet it would be even better cooked ".

18 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I consider the practice of face to be the polar opposite of the practice of Buddhism, which teaches the need for introspection, contemplation, owning up to a problem, and taking responsibility for issues, problems and tragedies that you create in life.

You're suggesting Thailand is a Buddhist country. It isn't, by any stretch of the imagination. Nowhere close. But we both know that ????

i stopped reading at 'stakes'. try again.