Takeaway disaster

Flyboy152

goater78 wrote: »

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.

But the consumer is not paying E-bay, they are paying the merchant. Sounds like a different scenario to me.

Flyboy152

zppp wrote: »

Further backed up by;



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.

But as has been pointed out, just because JustEat says so, does not make it true. They could say that that by ordering on the website, you have to sell them the soul of your first born, it doesn't make it legal though.

P.S. I am not saying that term is not legal, but that terms and conditions should not be blindly accepted as if they were.

Flyboy152

vyle wrote: »

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.

As an aside, in the USA, if you commit a crime using the mail, the internet and/or the telephone, you can be charged with mail or wire crimes. For example, if a criminal was to telephone you and offer a service that doesn't exist, if they can't get them on the non-existent service promise, they can get them on wire fraud.

Flyboy152

halibut2209 wrote: »

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.

Because your brother wouldn't be operating as a business during the transaction.

Flyboy152

goater78 wrote: »

I'm suprised this argument is still going on! I do have one question about JE and agencies that maybe fthl can answer. You can use JUSTEAT to order food but then say that you wish to pay on the door and therefore JUSTEAT are never paid by you and just pass your order onto the takeaway company. In this scenario as there are is no financial transaction between you and JE would you still regard them as being responsible for this damage?

Incidently the theory that claiming on your home insurance increases your premiums is a myth, although your home insurance probably would go up the next year, if you switch to a new provider the fact you have claimed on your previous provider won't affect the price of the new provider(I believe I saw Martin himself on Daybreak recently declaring this). Therefore if the OP can claim on his own insurance he may be best doing that.

Excuse me?????

I have a ten years no claims bonus on my home insurance.

System

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Excuse me?????

I have a ten years no claims bonus on my home insurance.

You must be very proud of yourself

Flyboy152

goater78 wrote: »

You must be very proud of yourself

I am, thank you. But it doesn't explain your assertion that claiming on home insurance doesn't increase the premiums.

System

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I am, thank you. But it doesn't explain your assertion that claiming on home insurance doesn't increase the premiums.

It'll increase your premiums with your current insurance company, however you will be able to easily switch to another insurance company and not be paying any more than you were with the previous company. No claims is one of those tools insurance companies use to trick the gulliable into not claiming on small claims that they are entitled to as "it'll affect my no claims". The insurance industry is a competitive market place and they all want your business so one claim to get the OP's step fixed is not going to lead to a ridiculously high premium. I have claimed on car and house insurances over the last few years and I have never had any trouble finding a new insurance provider at the same or less cost than my previous one.

fthl

media reports indicate that most people will see an increase in the cost of their premiums.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Is-worth-claiming-insurance-tele-3764420964.html?x=0

zppp

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But as has been pointed out, just because JustEat says so, does not make it true. They could say that that by ordering on the website

Their terms and conditions stipulate their relationship with the takeaway. I really cannot see how JE can be liable because the contract is formed between the customer and restaurant.

I placed an order with a takeaway, went through the checkout and went to confirmation, where the order is communicated to the restaurant. The takeaway refused stating that they were too busy, and rejected the order. This would clearly indicate that the contract is between the customer and the takeaway.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

you have to sell them the soul of your first born, it doesn't make it legal though.

No need to be melodramatic about it though