Takeaway disaster

fthl

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.

I would rather that someone explain that an agency exists where (a) (b) and (c) etc are in place and therefore this is an agency. All I am getting is 'it is just is an agency - live with it'. I can't. I want to know why.

Often with kitchen installations you pay the firm and then they will subcontract to a fitter. Sometimes they will even claim that they are not responsible for the actions of the fitter. MFI were masters at this. With kitchens and bathrooms etc, it isn't about any guarantee, but a contractual relationship.

My googling tells me that in order for an agency to exist, the agent's actions bind the principal. They also tell me that the principal must have control over the agent and that in some cases there must be some discretion on the part of the agent, for example negotiation with a buyer on the part of the principal.

Here, we have no control on the part of the principal, JE's actions do not bind the principal, JE are paid directly by the customer and there is no negotiation as to the price. What then makes this an agency?

pg2114

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner.

It's quite difficult to describe, but my driveway contains a step, which the delivery driver's car became stuck on. As his car was towed out, it completely scraped away the finish on the edge of my driveway, leaving it looking like an absolute mess.



I really did enjoy reading the debate about whether Just Eat are acting as an agent or a retailer.

I still don't understand how they aren't somewhat liable, regardless of what their terms and conditions state, remembering that they do not override the English and Welsh law. If the terms and conditions stated that they'll break my legs in the event of non-payment, that would not definitely stand in court.

Just Eat have effective passed my money onto the takeaway company, however this does not seem any different to a retailer passing my money onto the manufacturer. Maybe I would be barking up the wrong tree, but if I ordered goods with an online retailer and a courier damaged my property whilst delivering the goods, then I would chase the retailer for recompense. I believe the retailer should pay out for the damage and then it is up to the retailer to be compensated by the courier.

I have contacted both Just Eat and the takeaway, both of whom have more-or-less washed their hands of the repair bill.

Thank you.

System

I think you should send the repair bill to the Takeaway firm registered delivery and say if they don't pay you will refer the matter to the small claims court, the damage sounds extensive and I don't see why you should be out of pocket. I believe you should be compensated I just don't believe that its anything to do with JUSTEAT, as a few people have mentioned JUSTEAT only exist to host other companies menus and to provide an interface to enable you to pay online, they have nothing to do with anything that happens between you and the takeaway firm and by ordering from JUSTEAT you are agreeing to their terms and conditions that state they take no responsibility. If you feel that strongly they owe you something it could be worth threatening them with legal action but I would be suprised if that achieved anything and would end up costing you more money.

So to sum up, I think you've been hard done by and should get compensation I just think you are going at the one target!

pendulum

Mark7799 wrote: »

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.

The policy will still by law pay out for third party claims (such as the OP claiming for driveway repairs). The insurance company then has the right to persue the driver to recover the costs if he was driving for business purposes under an SD&P policy.

pendulum

pg2114 wrote: »

I have contacted both Just Eat and the takeaway, both of whom have more-or-less washed their hands of the repair bill.

What about the driver?
It was his car that caused the damage. He should have car insurance. He is the person that is most obviously liable here.

halibut2209

When I worked as a driver for Domino's, during working hours I was covered by Domino's insurance, not my own.

However, I'm sure that some establishments won't be as thorough

But yes, I'd say go for the restaurant, not the website.

fthl

pendulum wrote: »

What about the driver?
It was his car that caused the damage. He should have car insurance. He is the person that is most obviously liable here.

but also less likely to have the funds to pay.

With the debate about agency, and with the caveat that I'm still not convinced, my approach would be to sue and name both as defendents. Let them and the court sort it out.

I suspect that JE will settle the lot.

halibut2209

If I gave my brother some money to go and order a takeaway, he wouldn't be liable for the damage. I can't see how JE would be. The restaurant employs the driver, not JE.

pendulum

fthl wrote: »

but also less likely to have the funds to pay.

Didn't you read what I said about claiming from his car insurance policy?

pendulum

fthl wrote: »

I suspect that JE will settle the lot.

I think you are way off the mark, they will defend themselves as they have a strong case and also wouldn't want to set a precedent.