Takeaway disaster

Crazy_Jamie

fthl wrote: »

I don't do agency - it is not something I know a great deal about so I'm happy to be corrected, but isn't an agent liable to each party? What makes them agents and not just a company that is subcontracting?

Generally speaking, agents act with the authority of their principal, and as long as they stay within that authority it is the principal that is liable for their actions. Agents themselves become liable relatively rarely, and for them to do so it almost inevitably requires them acting outside of their authority and/or not disclosing the existence of the agency relationship to the third party. There are exceptions to those general rules, as ever, but unless people have a desire to learn about different types of authority and such I'm not going to go into the law of agency in any more detail than that.

As for the second question, the answer is simple by just looking at the service that Just Eat provides. It is essentially a search engine for local takeaway that also allows customers to order their food through the website directly. It is not Just Eat that pays the takeaway providers; it is the takeaway providers that pay Just Eat to receive the benefit of their service. Hence why Just Eat are the agents of the takeaway providers, and not vice versa.

paddyrg

If a dating agency match you up with a lovely woman who spills wine on your suit, you don't send the dating agency the dry cleaning bill!

fthl

It is essentially a search engine for local takeaway that also allows customers to order their food through the website directly. It is not Just Eat that pays the takeaway providers; it is the takeaway providers that pay Just Eat to receive the benefit of their service.

this is the bit that is confusing - the OP stated that "the order was placed wholly on the Just Eat website and they are the ones who have debited my card" so it would appear that he has not paid the takeaway directly, only the website. This seems to me to be similar to drop-shipping - you pay a retailer, they then pay their supplier and the supplier delivers to you.

As for the dating agency example, if there was a claim that fell within contract I might. For example if I said no nutters, and they sent me a someone who was, and who they knew to be a pyscho. Spilling wine wouldn't really constitute a breach of reasonable skill and care on the part of the dating agency.

Parva

Is this yet another troll? I await details of exactly what damage a take-away driver could do to someones driveway....

Back on topic, the driver himself is solely to blame and trying to persue either 'Just-Eat' or the take-away would be fruitless (unless the take-away actually 'employed' the driver rather than the driver working on a self-employed basis). Damn, I'm even complicating things just thinking about it.

This post does however illustrate the blame culture that we all live in now and it's an absolute joke. Everyone blames everyone else for the most ridiculous reasons and the ambulance chasers and whatnot are driving Porche's on the back of it all. Noooo, you got me started! Ok, I best stop now.

What damage are you referring to here? Did the driver deposit a squashed slug on your driveway as he delivered your take-away? Just wondering.

EDIT: The driveway damage is terrible and I feel your pain, the cold and inedible take-away - issue court summons on the lot of 'em, that's scandalous!

Crazy_Jamie

fthl wrote: »

this is the bit that is confusing - the OP stated that "the order was placed wholly on the Just Eat website and they are the ones who have debited my card" so it would appear that he has not paid the takeaway directly, only the website. This seems to me to be similar to drop-shipping - you pay a retailer, they then pay their supplier and the supplier delivers to you.

What about it is confusing you? You are quite correct that payment is made through Just Eat, but that makes no difference to the agency issue. Agents can do many things on behalf of their principal, including taking payment.

maninthestreet

OP. please tell us how the take-away delivery man managed to wreck your drive. As others have said, you need to make a claim on the insurance for the vehicle he was driving at the time.

fthl

It is confusing because you said that:

"It is essentially a search engine for local takeaway that also allows customers to order their food through the website directly.

It is not Just Eat that pays the takeaway providers; it is the takeaway providers that pay Just Eat to receive the benefit of their service.

Hence why Just Eat are the agents of the takeaway providers, and not vice versa."

So it seems that it is deemed agency because "It is not Just Eat that pays the takeaway providers; it is the takeaway providers that pay Just Eat to receive the benefit of their service" but the OP stated that this is not actually what happened - the OP paid JE. By extension therefore JE then pay the Take-a-way.

This isn't a dig - I'm just trying to understand the difference between agency and subcontracting. I'm really quite good at some areas of law, this just isn't one of them. I can't follow the reasoning here and it seems contradictory.

Can a take-a-way refuse an order placed with JE?

System

fthl wrote: »

Can a take-a-way refuse an order placed with JE?

Yes once you order through Just eat the web page connects to the takeaway and they then either accept or reject your order. I think Just Eat are a similar company to EBAY, if you buy something off EBAY and the seller delivering the item to your house damaged your property I believe it would not be EBAY's responsibilty. JUST EAT and EBAY are the mechanism's used by the Buyer to buy from a Seller, therefore I believe the contract you place when you order from JUST EAT is with the takeaway (the seller) not with JUST EAT.

JUST EAT make it quite clear in their terms and conditions that they don't guarantee the quality or service of the restaurants that use their service.

fthl

if they can refuse an order, and there is no real 'negotiation', then surely this means that it is not agency?

It doesn't operate like ebay because you don't pay ebay, you pay the seller directly or you pay paypal...

Crazy_Jamie

fthl wrote: »

So it seems that it is deemed agency because "It is not Just Eat that pays the takeaway providers; it is the takeaway providers that pay Just Eat to receive the benefit of their service" but the OP stated that this is not actually what happened - the OP paid JE. By extension therefore JE then pay the Take-a-way.

You misunderstand me. It is what happened, there are just two different payments going on. The takeaway providers pay Just Eat for their service (i.e. advertising their business, taking orders etc). That is the nature of the contractual relationship between Just Eat and the takeaway providers. However, in each individual transaction between the takeaway provider and the customer, Just Eat take payment on behalf of the takeaway provider as their agent. So you have two payments; one from the takeaway providers to Just Eat for their service, and one from the customer which is made to Just Eat, but which is effectively to the takeaway provider with Just Eat as an intermediary. It is the first of these that makes Just Eat an agent of the takeaway providers; the subsequent payment by customers is just a part of Just Eat's authority as an agent.