4 ms·
The restaurant agrees to Doordash’s terms when they buy pizza, not sell.
by chrisseaton 4y ago
The restaurant agrees to Doordash’s terms when they buy pizza, not sell.
- Retric 4y agoThe 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 agoWhich is legally distinct from the resturant.
- chrisseaton 4y agoIf the owner agreed not to create a nuisance and they’re order creates a nuisance then they’re not meeting their agreement.
- Retric 4y agoIn 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 agoIt'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 agoI'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 agoIt 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 agoSeems like a deliberate nuisance?
- Retric 4y agoHe was making individual orders of a large but not extreme size every few days. That's hardly a nuisance.
- dietketchup 4y agoThe 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 agoOwing a business doesn't mean every action you take represents the company.