Takeaway disaster

fthl

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.

The evidence points, in my view, to them being liable in contract. It has been suggested that they are not liable, because:

1) they are an agent
2) they say they are not liable

It seems that some of the factors needed to indicate an agency are not present. No poster has been able to provide any information or legal authority to show that JE are an agent and that they are not just using a subcontractor. I accept that this might be the case, but as it stands we've seen nothing persuasive and before ruling out a potential defendant, it'd be nice to see a reasoned argument why they are not liable, as opposed to 'they just aren't'. That sort of thing doesn't generally wash in front of a DJ, so I don't think it does here.

As for believing without question what JE says, that seems daft. I don't believe what currys, or comet, or any other shops tell me when I have a problem with them, so why should I believe JE?

Crazy_Jamie

Flyboy152 wrote: »

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

Of course it happens. Does it happen enough to warrant questioning whether or not a company is being fundamentally misleading to the point of being a facade at every given opportunity with not a shred of evidence to support such an assertion? No, it doesn't.

Flyboy152 wrote:

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

Indeed, but being suspicious of everything for the sake of it is an equally nonsensical approach. So far everything tangible that has been presented to show that an agency relationship exists has been met with the response of "it could be wrong" or "they could by lying". Both are potentially true, but without a single shred of anything to suggest that it is wrong or they are lying, what use is that stance to anyone in relation to this issue?

Flyboy152 wrote:

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.

But if Just Eat are indeed an agent of the takeaway providers, as everything tangible that we have seen would tend to suggest, then they would appear to be quite properly excluding liability for actions that they wouldn't liable for anyway. So what's the problem?

Every major company has on many occasions attempted to absolve themselves of liability when things have gone wrong. But, like it or not, there are many occasions when things go wrong and companies, for one reason or another, are not liable. I don't see how companies excluding liability for things that they are not actually liable for would cause you an particular discomfort.

fthl

So far everything tangible that has been presented to show that an agency relationship exists

But if Just Eat are indeed an agent of the takeaway providers, as everything tangible that we have seen would tend to suggest

This is what I've been asking for - I've seen the factors that suggest that this isn't agency - JE does not bind the principal, there is no negotiation on the part of the principal, the cash was paid directly to and credited to JE's account. What are the factors that indicate tat this is agency? Is there any authority that echoes this situation where an agency has been found? I've not yet seen a credible argument to show that it is yet. The only thing I've seen so far are a reliance on JE's representations and assertions that 'it just is agency'.

Crazy_Jamie

fthl wrote:

No poster has been able to provide any information or legal authority to show that JE are an agent and that they are not just using a subcontractor. I accept that this might be the case, but as it stands we've seen nothing persuasive and before ruling out a potential defendant, it'd be nice to see a reasoned argument why they are not liable, as opposed to 'they just aren't'.

The FAQ I linked you to makes reference to Just Eat sending invoices to the takeaway providers, which to tend to suggest with some force that the takeaway providers ultimately pay Just Eat for a service. That is what the evidence points towards, and that suggests a relationship where Just Eat is the agent, not where the takeaway providers are being sub contracted.

fthl wrote:

As for believing without question what JE says, that seems daft. I don't believe what currys, or comet, or any other shops tell me when I have a problem with them, so why should I believe JE?

I'm not suggesting we believe them without question. I'm suggesting that we believe them in the absence of any compelling reason not to. A general unfounded suspicion that they might be lying is not a compelling reason.

fthl

he FAQ I linked you to makes reference to Just Eat sending invoices to the takeaway providers, which to tend to suggest with some force that the takeaway providers ultimately pay Just Eat for a service. That is what the evidence points towards, and that suggests a relationship where Just Eat is the agent, not where the takeaway providers are being sub contracted.

It's a good point, but far from being conclusive, especially in the absence of the other factors, negotiation, JE binding the principle. It could also be an invoice for a contractual service.