WOKHEI 鍋氣 - Section 1

There shouldn't be a secret visitor to your taste, don't worry

The noble and elegant dining environment, the dishes are full of aroma.

The charges are high, but the meals are cooked casually and the quality of the ingredients fluctuates

False accusation, really advertising? Great tricks and great tricks, the height of the general store with low cp value is instantly raised to become a Michelin restaurant candidate

Disgraceful and thrown into the international arena... It is truly a "shame of Taiwan"! Not surprisingly, it has only three stars on Google Maps! This kind of attitude can also be called "famous store" and I am also drunk! It's probably a famous store with a "notorious reputation"! The following is excerpted from the United News Network 2022/05/02 report: The well-known restaurant "Wokhei" believes that it is inappropriate for Michelin to evaluate restaurants by "secret guest". Guoheng Catering Company, which operates the restaurant, has appointed a lawyer to file a civil lawsuit, requesting that certain behaviors be prohibited, and that Michelin reviewers should not come to the door. Taipei local The court ruled that Guoheng lost the case and could appeal. Guoheng learned that the verdict pointed out that the restaurant has the freedom to choose customers and decide whether or not to enter into a consumer contract with whom. Since the restaurant has refused to enter into a contract with the Michelin reviewers, Michelin should respect the restaurant's freedom of contracting. Unexpectedly, Michelin continued to claim that it would evaluate all restaurants in Taipei City, and claimed that restaurants could not refuse to contract with the reviewers. The court ruled that the Michelin reviewers were also allowed to pretend to be ordinary consumers to continue the contract. The judgment seems to be certain that everyone can use passive fraud. way to infringe on the freedom of contracting of others. Guoheng pointed out that this case involves the rights of freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, and it requires the courage to break through traditional and old thinking. The court's decision is equivalent to declaring that "no restaurant has the freedom to contract before Michelin." ” and will appeal after receiving the judgment. Furthermore, the court ruled that “food reviews belong to freedom of speech.” Guoheng believes that although food reviews are freedom of speech, the content of “speech” can only be described after the “dinner”, and the restaurant does not agree with the Michelin For the purpose of profit, it means publishing the Michelin guide for evaluation, and does not agree with the evaluation standards and systems, so the restaurant can refuse the Michelin reviewers to eat. It also ruled that "Michelin has never commented on Guoqi, nor has it been able to determine that it will evaluate Guoqi, and the claim of Guoqi's lawsuit is unfounded." Guoheng pointed out that this case is a suspicion that personality rights such as freedom of contract are infringed. , rather than the risk of damage to reputation, so whether Michelin has issued reviews of restaurants in the past is not the point. Guoheng said that since the Michelin Guide claims that the evaluation object is "all restaurants" in the selected city, and does not list restaurants that have not been evaluated, so "unpublished reviews" is also a kind of review, which is equivalent to not making the list after the evaluation. Therefore, the judgment concluded that "there is no way to determine that the boiler gas will be evaluated", which is obviously a misunderstanding of the Michelin Guide evaluation system.