31 Catt. 2: In re Henhouse

Opinion of JUSTICE CATTLEYA, in chambers.

The aroma of freshly fried chicken wafting from Henhouse’s window promised a satisfying lunch. Unfortunately, Henhouse didn’t deliver on that promise.

Henhouse, a truck painted as bright as a red barn after a fresh spring coat, serves the classics you’d expect to find at your local neighborhood joint. Besides fried chicken, choices include crispy chicken and fish sandwiches, chicken tenders, chicken wings, and fried shrimp. If Henhouse were a brick-and-mortar diner, it would be the kind of place where Guy Fieri would show up for a taping of Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives. This mental association with Mr. Fieri perhaps should have been my first clue of probable disappointment. (Mr. Fieri and I disagree over diners in the area. He liked Metro 29 Diner. I think Metro 29 Diner is to McDonald’s what the Washington Post’s Tom Sietsema thinks La Tagliatella is to the Olive Garden.)

Street Food Test

This court has consistently held that sandwiches are street food. See, e.g., In re Wassub, 13 Catt. 1 (2012); In re Borinquen Lunch Box, 10 Catt. 3 (2012); In re Rolling Ficelle, 6 Catt. 3 (2012). Because Henhouse’s chicken sandwich qualifies as street food, I am bound to affirm this case unless I can demonstrate a significant flaw with the sandwich. See In re Big Cheese, 6 Catt. 2 (2012) (explaining the burden of proof for cases before the Supreme Cart). I can.

Chicken Sandwich ($6.99)

I ordered Henhouse’s chicken sandwich, which came with lettuce and mayo. This very basic combination was disappointing. Even the comparable chicken sandwich from McDonald’s offers tomato. Or a pickle would have been nice.

Of the bun used for Henhouse’s sandwich, I will only say that it was as fresh and soft as a supermarket bun can be. It was neither so good nor so bad to warrant anything further.

The actual size of the chicken in the sandwich was a pleasant surprise. The large, thick cut extended well past the edges of the bun. The sandwich had enough meat, in fact, that it was sufficient for a meal without the addition of a side dish, like fries or cole slaw.

While Henhouse’s chicken got high marks on quantity, it fell short on quality. The chicken was fried well (crispy, not dry), but it was not seasoned well. It was just very, very bland. Henhouse provided condiments (e.g., barbecue sauce, hot sauce) that would have added much-needed flavor, but condiments should not be relied on to mask a poorly executed chicken. See also In re Bada Bing, 5 Catt. 2 (2012). Condiments should not be expected to fix any foodstuff. See In re Mac’s Donuts, 26 Catt. 1 (2013).

So, for its bland chicken, the case must be

REMANDED to Henhouse for revision. It is so ordered.