Read: Critical Legal Thinking Case 5.1

Read: Critical Legal Thinking Case 5.1 (p.110)a. Were the statement made in Zagat’ restaurant guide statement of facts or statement ofopinions?The statement made in Zagat’ restaurant guide is statement of opinion, because the rating ofLucky Cheng’s was calculated from surveys of previous customers, and the statement made in theguide was quoted from anonymous consumer comments.b. Is Zagat liable for disparagement? Explain your answer and rationale.No, Zagat is not liable for disparagement. Disparagementis false statements about a competitor’s products, services, property, or businessreputation(p. 89). First, Themed Restaurant is not a competitor of Zagat, and their profession indifferent domains. Meanwhile, Zagat Survey published reviews on its own guide, not on the thirdparty. Second, Zagat was not intent injury Lucky Cheng’s business by publish the statement in theguide, and it only provided a platform that shares comments of previous customers for thereferences. Third, Zagat’s statement on Lucky Cheng’s was collected comments from previouscustomers, so all the comments was the experiences of customers. It’s normal that customershave different opinions than the restaurant gave to its own, therefore there is no true or false tothese comments. 2. Read: Ethics Case 6.7 (p.139)a. Did Burger act ethically in trying to suppress the evidence?Definitely not. Burger’s behaviors