StudioGlyphic

Decision 2006

Written by

glyphic

in

It’s time to look back at one of the momentous decisions of the year: Is a burrito a sandwich? According to one activist judge, the answer is a resounding no.

Boston Globe: Arguments spread thick

The burrito brouhaha began when Panera, one of the country’s biggest bakery cafes, argued that owners of the White City Shopping Center in Shrewsbury violated a 2001 lease agreement that restricted the mall from renting to another sandwich shop. When the center signed a lease this year with Qdoba, Panera balked, saying the Mexican chain’s burritos violate its sandwich exclusivity clause.

…

In his ruling, Locke cited Webster’s definition of a sandwich and explained that the difference 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,” he wrote.

Judge Locke thinks he’s so clever. Let’s see how he deals with the wrap: burrito, sandwich, or salad?

Comments

One response to “Decision 2006”

  1. Doog

    But, does a burrito have the right to marry another burrito? Or, are only burrito-sandwich unions fit to be legally recognized?

    This burrito, even being happily married to a sandwich for nigh on seven years now, thinks that if a burrito wants to share the same tray with another burrito, happily swimming together in a love-filled tub of guacamole and swapping sour cream under the passion-inspiring faux-flame of the heat lamp, who am I to judge? Just put the two-burrito platter up on the menu board and be done with it, fer Pete’s sake!

    And the wrap would be considered half burrito, half sandwich. I hear they’re pretty popular in San Francisco and Eddy Murphy’s back seat.

    I’m hungry now.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to DoogCancel reply

More posts