4 ms·
Brooklyn Burger King Delivered Beef Whoppers to Customers Expecting ‘Impossible’
- kayfox 7y agoHaving observed my roomies trying to sort out ordering stuff off these delivery companies' apps, talking about things listed in the menu the restaurant doesn't actually do and all that, I have a hard time believing that this is for certain a mistake by the restaurant. I suspect it may have been that Burger King corporate added the product and expected franchisees to remove it or hide it until they had the product on hand and this particular franchisee had difficulties doing that, such as it was not noticed by the people with access to do that in the delivery app, or access was difficult to get. This sort of thing is to be expected when we push simple applications into complicated environments (which the franchise fast food restaurant is a complicated environment that seems simple at first glance) and expect it to be easy.
- ptah 7y agoThis is pretty egregious for vegans and other with protected religious beliefs that prohibits consumption of meat/beef. what is the legal recourse?
- duxup 7y agoWhat would the legal basis be for having any recourse?
- adrianmonk 7y agoIANAL, but it seems possible that intentionally or negligently selling someone a product that definitely isn't what they thought they were buying could constitute something like fraud or misrepresentation. They might be liable for the cost of the hamburger, at least, because you did not get what you paid for. I also wonder if there might be punitive damages. Here's a random example of a case where there were punitive damages for a business-to-business negligent misrepresentation case: http://www.obrlaw.com/commercial-litigation.php?Third-Circuit-Affirms-5-Million-Punitive-Damages-Award-in-Negligent-Misrepresentation-Case-12 http://www.obrlaw.com/commercial-litigation.php?Third-Circui... And I'd also wonder if there could be something like pain and suffering or emotional distress. I doubt it would work to demonstrate actual harm (health effects, etc.) in unwittingly/unwillingly eating meat, but I think it'd be pretty easy to argue that someone might feel a lot of distress from being forced to experience something they have deeply-held beliefs against.
- millzlane 7y agoFrom what I understand. If you unknowingly ate it your religion doesn't count that as bad. On the topic of legal recourse...I once knew a person who got a piece of a glove with blood on it on their burger and the bun from a Burger King. A lot of lawyers refused to help her citing "the fear of contracting a disease isn't enough for compensation."
- ptah 7y agoNot for vegans as the harm to the animal will still weigh on one's conscience. It's about the spirit of the rule that you are voluntarily submitting to.
- Mikeb85 7y agoSo why are they eating in a restaurant that contributes to that harm? Their dollars pay the bills of restaurants that serve meat.
- Mikeb85 7y agoWhy would there be a legal recourse? If someone has a strong religious aversion to a product, why are they eating in a restaurant that serves that product? Furthermore, their religion dictates they only eat meats blessed by a cleric of their religion, last I checked non-halal or kosher restaurants aren't sourcing halal/kosher meats. And vegans aren't a protected religious group.
- ptah 7y agobecause the restaurant advertises that is has options for them
- ptah 7y agovegans are protected in the UK
- thoughtstheseus 7y agoProtected from what?
- elbrian 7y agoI took 20 seconds to Google "vegans protected UK" and find this article for you: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/vegans-discrimination-equality-act-case-tribunal-jordi-casamitjana-a8664551.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/vegans-discr...
- duxup 7y agoYour 20 seconds of googling got an article that talks about "may get" and doesn't really explain how that would apply to this situation. Just being protected and getting the wrong food at a restaurant doesn't necessarily follow that you've got legal recourse to do anything.
- elbrian 7y ago> Your 20 seconds of googling got an article that talks about "may get" and doesn't really explain how that would apply to this situation. That wasn't part of your question. Do you typically rely on others to read your mind, while asking questions?
- dawnerd 7y agoCould be considered an undeclared ingredient. There’s plenty of recalls from that every year, although most have to do with unlabeled ingredients being allergens. This is kind of what I feared would happen when you take something that’s so similar to real meat and let fast food workers try to sort it out.
- zaphirplane 7y agoWhat are you trying to get out of the legal recourse Get rich ? Financial Punishment? It’s not going to put a dent in their revenue Name and shame ? It’s happened
- duxup 7y agoI feel like if you're eating someplace and something on the menu is absolutely not acceptable to you... you're always taking some risk. Everyone has had their orders mixed up in various ways here or there. That's not fair, but it is just a very real thing that could happen.
- threezero 7y agoBurger King must be known for screwing up: https://youtu.be/-PgfLysQua0 https://youtu.be/-PgfLysQua0 “I know what you’re the king of - getting my fucking order wrong.”
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- adrianmonk 7y ago> asking the driver to inform people of the swap Everything else aside, this is a horrible way for a business to handle the situation. When you receive an order for something you know you definitely can't deliver, you don't plow forward and try to fob off some substitute thing on them. You either contact them and get their approval first, or you cancel the order. On top of that, relying on the driver to inform them is another problem. Drivers aren't going to be 100% reliable at that (it's not their primary responsibility, they're in a hurry, they may fail to understand the situation, etc.), so that's a terrible plan, and you're just asking for the situation to go bad.