4 ms·

I'm curious about the legalities here. They're not just delivering food at the direction of a licensed restaurant. They're buying food from a restaurant and sel

I'm curious about the legalities here. They're not just delivering food at the direction of a licensed restaurant. They're buying food from a restaurant and selling it to somebody else.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
That's not what the article says. The delivery companies are representing that the restaurants are on the platform, but charging the wrong price for the menu items, and refusing to pay the difference when the order amount is insufficient to cover the actual price.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- smelendez 7y ago
  Right, but they're doing so without any kind of permission. They're either taking orders and not delivering them or in some cases taking them, buying the item from the restaurant and selling it to the end consumer. I would think that might require a different kind of license, if it is legal at all, because the restaurant doesn't have any contractual control over what happens to the food after it leaves the premises in terms of storage time, temperatures, etc. If the menus are outdated, the delivery service may not even know what's in the food.
- p1necone 7y ago
  Surely this is a problem that fixes itself. Unaffiliated delivery service advertises insufficient price, sends driver to restaurant, driver arrives at restaurant, doesn't have enough money to pay for food, either doesn't get food, or delivery service covers the difference. The delivery service would need to fix their price listings pretty quickly or they'd continuously lose money. I don't think we should stop ad hoc delivery services like this, but they should have to clearly advertise that that's what they are, not falsely claim to be actually affiliated with the restaraunt. Edit: I think these kinds of delivery services are valuable because of the layer of abstraction between them and the food business that allows them to deliver from anywhere rather than just the businesses that sign up with the service. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to pay for a proxy to drive to, order and deliver for me. If they are continually making this kind of pricing mistake, perhaps they should be charged with harassment or something though.
  - alasdair_ 7y ago
    It’s the restaurant that loses most of the money because it’s left with food that it made to order but is not sold.
    - p1necone 7y ago
      But if that's happening then aren't these delivery services hemorrhaging money? Is the problem that they have enough VC money to burn while unknowingly making enough mistakes to hurt everyone else? In a sane world this problem wouldn't be possible - no rational actors should be ordering and then not paying for enough food to seriously hurt a business because there isn't anything to gain from such behavior.
      - 29083011397778 7y ago
        > no rational actors should be ordering and then not paying for enough food to seriously hurt a business Who says it's one actor, instead of a town full of people trying once (or even once every couple of months to see if the issue persists), and failing?
        p1necone 7y ago
        The delivery company is one actor. They lose money every time this happens.
      - hug 7y ago
        > But if that's happening then aren't these delivery services hemorrhaging money? Is the problem that they have enough VC money to burn while unknowingly making enough mistakes to hurt everyone else? And from the article... > According to The Information, Doordash is expected to lose $450 million this year So, I would probably like, just lean roughly on the side of "yes".
    - toss1 7y ago
      Plus the reputational damage from dissatisfied customers who think it is the restaurant that is dishonest or incompetent.

I'm curious about the legalities here. They're not just delivering food at the direction of a licensed restaurant. They're buying food from a restaurant and selling it to somebody else.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

That's not what the article says. The delivery companies are representing that the restaurants are on the platform, but charging the wrong price for the menu items, and refusing to pay the difference when the order amount is insufficient to cover the actual price.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
smelendez 7y ago
Right, but they're doing so without any kind of permission. They're either taking orders and not delivering them or in some cases taking them, buying the item from the restaurant and selling it to the end consumer. I would think that might require a different kind of license, if it is legal at all, because the restaurant doesn't have any contractual control over what happens to the food after it leaves the premises in terms of storage time, temperatures, etc. If the menus are outdated, the delivery service may not even know what's in the food.
p1necone 7y ago
Surely this is a problem that fixes itself. Unaffiliated delivery service advertises insufficient price, sends driver to restaurant, driver arrives at restaurant, doesn't have enough money to pay for food, either doesn't get food, or delivery service covers the difference. The delivery service would need to fix their price listings pretty quickly or they'd continuously lose money. I don't think we should stop ad hoc delivery services like this, but they should have to clearly advertise that that's what they are, not falsely claim to be actually affiliated with the restaraunt. Edit: I think these kinds of delivery services are valuable because of the layer of abstraction between them and the food business that allows them to deliver from anywhere rather than just the businesses that sign up with the service. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to pay for a proxy to drive to, order and deliver for me. If they are continually making this kind of pricing mistake, perhaps they should be charged with harassment or something though.
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  It’s the restaurant that loses most of the money because it’s left with food that it made to order but is not sold.
  - p1necone 7y ago
    But if that's happening then aren't these delivery services hemorrhaging money? Is the problem that they have enough VC money to burn while unknowingly making enough mistakes to hurt everyone else? In a sane world this problem wouldn't be possible - no rational actors should be ordering and then not paying for enough food to seriously hurt a business because there isn't anything to gain from such behavior.
    - 29083011397778 7y ago
      > no rational actors should be ordering and then not paying for enough food to seriously hurt a business Who says it's one actor, instead of a town full of people trying once (or even once every couple of months to see if the issue persists), and failing?
      - p1necone 7y ago
        The delivery company is one actor. They lose money every time this happens.
    - hug 7y ago
      > But if that's happening then aren't these delivery services hemorrhaging money? Is the problem that they have enough VC money to burn while unknowingly making enough mistakes to hurt everyone else? And from the article... > According to The Information, Doordash is expected to lose $450 million this year So, I would probably like, just lean roughly on the side of "yes".
  - toss1 7y ago
    Plus the reputational damage from dissatisfied customers who think it is the restaurant that is dishonest or incompetent.