Takeaway disaster

fthl

how is that different from essentially pay-per-click advertising or referrals? Especially if the take-a-way can refuse the order and I understand that they only pay for the orders they get.

I really want to stress that I'm not trying to be difficult - I'm trying to understand and to get to the reasons why it might be an agency. At the moment I can't see the distinction.

zppp

1.3 JUST-EAT provides a way for you to communicate your orders to quick service restaurants (“QSRs”) displayed on this Website

Further backed up by;

10.2 JUST-EAT takes full responsibility for the content of this Website and for the communication of orders to the QSRs as set out in these Website Terms. JUST-EAT’s customer care team will, subject to your compliance with these Website Terms and cooperation, use all reasonable endeavours to resolve any issues arising from the submission of orders via this Website including the processing of all credit or debit card refunds and chargebacks where appropriate. However, please note that the legal contract for the supply and purchase of food and beverages is between you and the QSR that you place your order with. JUST-EAT cannot give any undertaking that the food and beverages ordered from QSRs through this Website will be of satisfactory quality and any such warranties are disclaimed by JUST-EAT. Neither can JUST-EAT give an undertaking that the estimated delivery and collection times stated on this Website are accurate. These disclaimers do not affect your statutory rights against the QSRs.

I think this is the quote from the conditions you need to all see. Just Eat only provides a facility for you to contact the restaurant (or place an order) and does not form a contract with you when you place an order. On this basis, Just Eat are an agent.

vyle

I guess it's no different than trying to sue BT because of the same thing, just because you used their service while ordering your food.

fthl

Just because their t's and c;s say something, doesn't mean it's true.

It isn't like BT unless you order a pizza, pay BT who then pass the order on to the pizza shop and pay them. Here the website is being paid directly - that is what I can't get.

zppp

fthl wrote: »

Just because their t's and c;s say something, doesn't mean it's true.

A coherent argument has been made by many users on this, and the other post I highlighted over on page 1 of the OP's thread.

What do you propose as the truth?

gordikin

What was the actual damage caused to the driveway?

fthl

zppp wrote: »

A coherent argument has been made by many users on this, and the other post I highlighted over on page 1 of the OP's thread.

What do you propose as the truth?

I'm not suggesting anything different - yet. But I disagree that a coherant argument has been made on this or the other thread. So far it is being suggested that it is agency because it is, but to my understanding whether an agency exists depends on the actual facts of the relationship, not what it is described as. The ability to bind a principle, a degree of negotiation etc. These factors seem absent here.

As I've said above - this isn't my area of law, I appreciate that it is complex, but I'm keen on understanding why it is considered agency, what makes this agency as opposed to a subcontracting relationship, or akin to a drop shipper. Others have posted that otherwise it would be like suing ebay or BT - I've suggested it isn't as JE are paid directly.

It seems to be very much a similar situation to many service contracts in which the organisation paid is responsible for the deal. If I buy a kitchen from john lewis they then get fitters in for me. If the fitters make a has of it I sue JL. How is that different than this situation?

That is why I am asking for more info - don't just say it is - say why it is and distinguish it from the other commercial relationships. A bit of case law on the definition of an agency, if you have something would be appreciated.

Thanks

mamabuddah

gordikin wrote: »

What was the actual damage caused to the driveway?

been asked 2 or 3 times now....still no answer....wonder (after the tone of the OP) if it's a really petty thing...like dropped some mud on my paving?

System

fthl wrote: »

I'm not suggesting anything different - yet. But I disagree that a coherant argument has been made on this or the other thread. So far it is being suggested that it is agency because it is, but to my understanding whether an agency exists depends on the actual facts of the relationship, not what it is described as. The ability to bind a principle, a degree of negotiation etc. These factors seem absent here.

As I've said above - this isn't my area of law, I appreciate that it is complex, but I'm keen on understanding why it is considered agency, what makes this agency as opposed to a subcontracting relationship, or akin to a drop shipper. Others have posted that otherwise it would be like suing ebay or BT - I've suggested it isn't as JE are paid directly.

It seems to be very much a similar situation to many service contracts in which the organisation paid is responsible for the deal. If I buy a kitchen from john lewis they then get fitters in for me. If the fitters make a has of it I sue JL. How is that different than this situation?

That is why I am asking for more info - don't just say it is - say why it is and distinguish it from the other commercial relationships. A bit of case law on the definition of an agency, if you have something would be appreciated.

Thanks

I believe if you buy a kitchen off John Lewis then you have bought the product from John Lewis and they have supplied the labour to install this product and will guarantee both the product and the fitting, therefore John Lewis would be responsible for any damage. Just Eat on the otherhand do not provide the product or the delivery of the product, they make it clear on their T's & C's that they offer no guarantee for the product and exist soley as a gobetween for you and the restaurant.

I sense you will never accept this argument, therefore I suggest the only solution would be for you to use JUST EAT yourself until you have a bad experience and then sue the company themselves, you can then argue your case in a court of law and see what the outcome is.

Mark7799

pendulum wrote: »

This is a very easy one, the driver is responsible, and should have insurance to cover the damage. He is supposed to have 'business car insurance' if he is acting as a takeaway delivery driver, but even if he has normal Social Domestic & Pleasure or similar, it will still cover you for the loss you've suffered. How much is the damage? It is possible he'd offer to pay rather than claim if you started asking questions about whether he was covered for business use etc, as he will rightly think he could be in trouble if not properly insured.

There is no way Just Eat are responsible for this, your totally barking up the wrong tree there. If you sued them they'd almost certainly defend and they would win. They weren't negligent, they couldn't possibly have known the takeaway would send someone to crash on your driveway.

If he is using the vehicle for a business purpose then SD&P may not cover him - it may also mean he's driving without the correct insurance cover.