Takeaway disaster

Flyboy152

zppp wrote: »

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.



No need to be melodramatic about it though

But it still illustrates the point. I could set up a shop, put up a notice saying that all queries must be referred to the manufacturer and sit back. It doesn't make it true, simply because I put up a notice saying it is. Now, I am not posting an opinion in respect of the who is liable in this case, I am just making a point, just because someone decides to put a term in their contract, it doesn't make it lawful.

fthl

I really cannot see how JE can be liable because the contract is formed between the customer and restaurant.

This is the crux of the matter here. we don't actually know what the commercial relationship is.

The OP paid JE so he might have a contract with JE who subcontracted to the takeaway. There might be no contract between the OP and the takeaway.
JE might be an agent of the takeaway, in which case the contract is with the takeaway.
The delivery driver might be self employed - in which case he is liable for his own acts.
the delivery driver might be an employee of the takeaway in which case the takeaway is liable for his acts.

The only thing that is reasonably certain is that it really doesn't matter what the t's and c's say - it matters what the commercial relationship actually is. There seem to be plenty of cases that illustrate this point - courts don't look at what you say is the legal basis of a relationship, they look at what it actually is. the Spearmint Rhino case I mentioned above being one example.

Flyboy152

fthl wrote: »

This is the crux of the matter here. we don't actually know what the commercial relationship is.

The OP paid JE so he might have a contract with JE who subcontracted to the takeaway. There might be no contract between the OP and the takeaway.
JE might be an agent of the takeaway, in which case the contract is with the takeaway.
The delivery driver might be self employed - in which case he is liable for his own acts.
the delivery driver might be an employee of the takeaway in which case the takeaway is liable for his acts.

The only thing that is reasonably certain is that it really doesn't matter what the t's and c's say - it matters what the commercial relationship actually is. There seem to be plenty of cases that illustrate this point - courts don't look at what you say is the legal basis of a relationship, they look at what it actually is. the Spearmint Rhino case I mentioned above being one example.

Perhaps Just Eat's responsibility lies only with the placing of the order, i.e., to make sure that the order gets through to the restaurant. If, for example, the order never arrives, then they would be liable for any losses incurred by the consumer (the limits of which are not relevant at this stage). Just a thought.

Crazy_Jamie

fthl wrote: »

This is the crux of the matter here. we don't actually know what the commercial relationship is.

http://www.just-eat.co.uk/faq

The various questions and answers within the FAQ clearly show the nature of the commercial relationship. Just Eat provides a mechanism by which customers can order takeaway from providers across the country. The takeaway providers pay Just Eat for providing the service of adding them and their menu to the site. It really is as simple as that. I appreciate that your inquisitorial nature is causing you to constantly question sources of information, but there really does have to come a point where you stop and accept what is right in front of you.

It is true that just because things appear in Terms and Conditions it doesn't make them binding, but equally questioning everything on that basis is unnecessary and tiresome. The answer to this extended line of questioning is, and always has been, very clear.

gordikin

Could it be argued that whoever towed the delivery vehicle off the drive caused the damage and that it is they who should be pursued?

fthl

The various questions and answers within the FAQ clearly show the nature of the commercial relationship.

No they don't. They show what JE wants it to be, not what it actually is. Of course they are going to try and paint a picture that shows they have no liability.

The takeaway providers pay Just Eat for providing the service of adding them and their menu to the site. It really is as simple as that.

It isn't - because JE take the payment (in some cases) from the buyer.

but there really does have to come a point where you stop and accept what is right in front of you.

True - and that tack seems to show that no-one has yet been able to show why this isn't a contract, why it is agency or similar - the only things we've had are complete reliance on what JE say. So by that reasoning, have we reached the point where we have to accept what isn't in front of us?

Flyboy152

gordikin wrote: »

Could it be argued that whoever towed the delivery vehicle off the drive caused the damage and that it is they who should be pursued?

No.

...............

Flyboy152

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

http://www.just-eat.co.uk/faq

The various questions and answers within the FAQ clearly show the nature of the commercial relationship. Just Eat provides a mechanism by which customers can order takeaway from providers across the country. The takeaway providers pay Just Eat for providing the service of adding them and their menu to the site. It really is as simple as that. I appreciate that your inquisitorial nature is causing you to constantly question sources of information, but there really does have to come a point where you stop and accept what is right in front of you.

It is true that just because things appear in Terms and Conditions it doesn't make them binding, but equally questioning everything on that basis is unnecessary and tiresome. The answer to this extended line of questioning is, and always has been, very clear.

Do you think that they might not be telling the truth?

Crazy_Jamie

fthl wrote: »

No they don't. They show what JE wants it to be, not what it actually is. Of course they are going to try and paint a picture that shows they have no liability.

It isn't - because JE take the payment (in some cases) from the buyer.

True - and that tack seems to show that no-one has yet been able to show why this isn't a contract, why it is agency or similar - the only things we've had are complete reliance on what JE say. So by that reasoning, have we reached the point where we have to accept what isn't in front of us?

Whilst I have no problem with a general need for scrutiny in this sort of situation, there is a point at which it just becomes a bit silly. The question has been posed as to what the nature of this relationship is. We have information before us which seems to give a clear answer to that question. Just Eat provide a service to the takeaway providers for which they appear to invoice them. Their role within that service is predominantly facilitating advertising and ordering, but can on occasion stretch to other things such as taking payment. That is clear and straightforward. We could go around in circles forever with the line "but what if that's not right?", but in the absence of any sort of evidence that it isn't right that really is all we have, and the evidence we do have clearly points to that conclusion.

Yes, it could be that the whole website is a facade constructed to limit liability through putting unfair contract terms in place and misleading customers as to the nature of the business. Or it could be that their website is not at all misleading in the hope that they may actually legitimately attract new customers. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever to suggest the former, I'll take the latter. By all means this baseless scrutiny if you want, but I suspect you'll be waiting for your 'definitive' answer for quite some time.

Flyboy152 wrote:

Do you think that they might not be telling the truth?

Do you think they might be telling the truth? I mean seriously, what would be the point about lying about the whole basis of their business? It would be wholly counter productive to do so.

On a side note, what evidence are the two of you actually waiting for to settle this issue? This inherent suspicion of what appears to be a reputable company is beyond tiresome, so I'm curious as to what you're actually waiting for to convince you one way or the other here.

Flyboy152

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Yes, it could be that the whole website is a facade constructed to limit liability through putting unfair contract terms in place and misleading customers as to the nature of the business. Or it could be that their website is not at all misleading in the hope that they may actually legitimately attract new customers. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever to suggest the former, I'll take the latter. By all means this baseless scrutiny if you want, but I suspect you'll be waiting for your 'definitive' answer for quite some time.

What? You don't think that doesn't happen?

Do you think they might be telling the truth? I mean seriously, what would be the point about lying about the whole basis of their business? It would be wholly counter productive to do so./QUOTE]

Well.....I'd say you answered that in above extract.

Whilst I have no problem with a general need for scrutiny in this sort of situation, there is a point at which it just becomes a bit silly. The question has been posed as to what the nature of this relationship is. We have information before us which seems to give a clear answer to that question. Just Eat provide a service to the takeaway providers for which they appear to invoice them. Their role within that service is predominantly facilitating advertising and ordering, but can on occasion stretch to other things such as taking payment. That is clear and straightforward. We could go around in circles forever with the line "but what if that's not right?", but in the absence of any sort of evidence that it isn't right that really is all we have, and the evidence we do have clearly points to that conclusion.

On a side note, what evidence are the two of you actually waiting for to settle this issue? This inherent suspicion of what appears to be a reputable company is beyond tiresome, so I'm curious as to what you're actually waiting for to convince you one way or the other here.

The whole point has been that people should not blindly accept the terms and conditions of a business, just because the website say so.

I would feel uncomfortable doing business with a company, who takes my money and tries to absolve themselves of any liability when things go wrong.