6 ms·

> Doordash and the pizza company had no contractual relationship. Don't Doordash and the pizza company owner have a contractual relationship when the pizza sho

> Doordash and the pizza company had no contractual relationship. Don't Doordash and the pizza company owner have a contractual relationship when the pizza shop owner agrees to the Terms of Service for using the Doordash app to order food? I have no clue if the doordash TOS forbids such usage, but it might?

joshstrange 4y ago
No, that was kind of the point. Doordash listed them without the restaurant's approval. In fact it was a surprise to the pizza place they were on DD.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  The restaurant agrees to Doordash’s terms when they buy pizza, not sell.
  - Retric 4y ago
    The restaurant did not agree to anything, at most the person ordering food agreed to something.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > the person ordering food agreed to something That’s… the restaurant owner, though.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Which is legally distinct from the resturant.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        If the owner agreed not to create a nuisance and they’re order creates a nuisance then they’re not meeting their agreement.
        Retric 4y ago
        In your hypothetical case they could sue the owner but not the company.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > at most the person ordering food agreed to something. That's the part I'm talking about. The restaurant owner agreed to something in order to use the app to buy pizza.
      - cecilpl2 4y ago
        It's a bit bizarre that you are claiming this relationship might exist, when you could simply read the TOS and see if such a clause exists.
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        I'm not a lawyer, I can read the TOS but I'm not qualified to understand it. TOSes are a farce but that doesn't mean they can't be enforced. EDIT: But I'll humor the premise, here are some lines from the customer TOS: > (e) You will not use the Services to cause nuisance, annoyance or inconvenience. > (q) You will not try to harm other Users, DoorDash, or the Services in any way whatsoever. > (t) You will not abuse our promotional or credit code system, including by redeeming multiple coupons at once or by opening multiple accounts to benefit from offers available only to first-time users. > You agree that promotional offers: (i) may only be used by the intended audience, for the intended purpose, and in a lawful manner; What are the actual legal implications of these lines? I have no clue. Could they be construed by lawyers to forbid this scheme? I don't know.
        Retric 4y ago
        It would be really interesting for DoorDash to argue in court that ordering food from them and then paying for it somehow harms them. But in case you really can’t tell, no the terms don’t apply here. Lawsuits generally assume people have put on their big boy pants, if sell a painting for 10$ that ends up being worth millions that’s on you. You decided 10$ was a reasonable price at the time of sale and you don’t get to say but your honor I am an idiot.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
    - dietketchup 4y ago
      The restaurant was represented by the person ordering the food. That person had to agree to TOS when downloading the Door Dash app. That is what is being considered.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Owing a business doesn't mean every action you take represents the company.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rideontime 4y ago
Not necessarily, considering how DoorDash adds restaurants to their site without their knowledge and foists the customer service burden onto them. e: Yes, the original article makes it clear that he didn't sign up for this: https://www.readmargins.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitrage https://www.readmargins.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitrage
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  I don't mean a TOS between Doordash and the restaurant, I mean the TOS between Doordash and customers of Doordash using the Doordash app. The pizzeria owner signed up to Doordash as a customer, in order to buy pizzas.
  - not2b 4y ago
    And he honored this contract. He paid $16 for each pizza, just as Doordash offered. The fact that Doordash was selling pizzas for a loss was Doordash's problem, not his.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > And he honored this contract. I don't know, what does the TOS actually say? The app's TOS might say something like "you can't use this app to order food from a business you own", or something else that might forbid this scheme. Maybe it doesn't though, I don't know and haven't read it, but I think it could.
      - rideontime 4y ago
        I have no reason to believe the TOS contains a clause like that.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        I’d argue it’s clearly a ‘nuisance’, which is prohibited by the TOS.
Retric 4y ago
I don't think you could add such language to a TOS and have it be legally binding.
bee_rider 4y ago
Potentially yes, and I think people are skimming over this because they want to agree with what the shop owner is doing (because Doordash sucks and is a predatory business). To buy from Doordash, you have to agree to some TOS on their app. Sales, as has been pointed out, no. But buying, yes. He could be violating that TOS, if they try to prevent this sort of thing. Since this loophole was reported on in a fairly well-known publication years ago, it isn't ridiculous to think they have something in there. IANAL, but I wonder if he could coordinate with somebody to have them order the pizzas instead, so he doesn't have to agree to anything. A funny idea might be to start offering Doordash's discount to in-person customers who were going to buy the pizza anyway. "Just order on this stupid app and set your delivery location to our address, then we'll Doordash it across the room or whatever." A further extension of this would be, if he can figure out what Doordash is parsing wrong on his online menu, then maybe he could try to work out how to get that field to show up as $1. I'm not sure if it was this one, but there was some place that had had their fancy custom pizza listed with their plain cheese pizza price. So maybe they could start their menu with something like: Plain pizza raw (subheader: It is literally a lump of uncooked dough, don't buy this): $1

joshstrange 4y ago

No, that was kind of the point. Doordash listed them without the restaurant's approval. In fact it was a surprise to the pizza place they were on DD.

chrisseaton 4y ago
The restaurant agrees to Doordash’s terms when they buy pizza, not sell.
- Retric 4y ago
  The restaurant did not agree to anything, at most the person ordering food agreed to something.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > the person ordering food agreed to something That’s… the restaurant owner, though.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Which is legally distinct from the resturant.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        If the owner agreed not to create a nuisance and they’re order creates a nuisance then they’re not meeting their agreement.
        Retric 4y ago
        In your hypothetical case they could sue the owner but not the company.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > at most the person ordering food agreed to something. That's the part I'm talking about. The restaurant owner agreed to something in order to use the app to buy pizza.
    - cecilpl2 4y ago
      It's a bit bizarre that you are claiming this relationship might exist, when you could simply read the TOS and see if such a clause exists.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        I'm not a lawyer, I can read the TOS but I'm not qualified to understand it. TOSes are a farce but that doesn't mean they can't be enforced. EDIT: But I'll humor the premise, here are some lines from the customer TOS: > (e) You will not use the Services to cause nuisance, annoyance or inconvenience. > (q) You will not try to harm other Users, DoorDash, or the Services in any way whatsoever. > (t) You will not abuse our promotional or credit code system, including by redeeming multiple coupons at once or by opening multiple accounts to benefit from offers available only to first-time users. > You agree that promotional offers: (i) may only be used by the intended audience, for the intended purpose, and in a lawful manner; What are the actual legal implications of these lines? I have no clue. Could they be construed by lawyers to forbid this scheme? I don't know.
        Retric 4y ago
        It would be really interesting for DoorDash to argue in court that ordering food from them and then paying for it somehow harms them. But in case you really can’t tell, no the terms don’t apply here. Lawsuits generally assume people have put on their big boy pants, if sell a painting for 10$ that ends up being worth millions that’s on you. You decided 10$ was a reasonable price at the time of sale and you don’t get to say but your honor I am an idiot.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
  - dietketchup 4y ago
    The restaurant was represented by the person ordering the food. That person had to agree to TOS when downloading the Door Dash app. That is what is being considered.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Owing a business doesn't mean every action you take represents the company.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rideontime 4y ago

Not necessarily, considering how DoorDash adds restaurants to their site without their knowledge and foists the customer service burden onto them. e: Yes, the original article makes it clear that he didn't sign up for this: https://www.readmargins.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitrage https://www.readmargins.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitrage

MichaelCollins 4y ago
I don't mean a TOS between Doordash and the restaurant, I mean the TOS between Doordash and customers of Doordash using the Doordash app. The pizzeria owner signed up to Doordash as a customer, in order to buy pizzas.
- not2b 4y ago
  And he honored this contract. He paid $16 for each pizza, just as Doordash offered. The fact that Doordash was selling pizzas for a loss was Doordash's problem, not his.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > And he honored this contract. I don't know, what does the TOS actually say? The app's TOS might say something like "you can't use this app to order food from a business you own", or something else that might forbid this scheme. Maybe it doesn't though, I don't know and haven't read it, but I think it could.
    - rideontime 4y ago
      I have no reason to believe the TOS contains a clause like that.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        I’d argue it’s clearly a ‘nuisance’, which is prohibited by the TOS.

Retric 4y ago

I don't think you could add such language to a TOS and have it be legally binding.

bee_rider 4y ago

Potentially yes, and I think people are skimming over this because they want to agree with what the shop owner is doing (because Doordash sucks and is a predatory business). To buy from Doordash, you have to agree to some TOS on their app. Sales, as has been pointed out, no. But buying, yes. He could be violating that TOS, if they try to prevent this sort of thing. Since this loophole was reported on in a fairly well-known publication years ago, it isn't ridiculous to think they have something in there. IANAL, but I wonder if he could coordinate with somebody to have them order the pizzas instead, so he doesn't have to agree to anything. A funny idea might be to start offering Doordash's discount to in-person customers who were going to buy the pizza anyway. "Just order on this stupid app and set your delivery location to our address, then we'll Doordash it across the room or whatever." A further extension of this would be, if he can figure out what Doordash is parsing wrong on his online menu, then maybe he could try to work out how to get that field to show up as $1. I'm not sure if it was this one, but there was some place that had had their fancy custom pizza listed with their plain cheese pizza price. So maybe they could start their menu with something like: Plain pizza raw (subheader: It is literally a lump of uncooked dough, don't buy this): $1