4 ms·

> 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

> 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
      Seems like a deliberate nuisance?
      - Retric 4y ago
        He was making individual orders of a large but not extreme size every few days. That's hardly a nuisance.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        Seems like a meaningless distinction? The owner knows he’s being an ass - he wrote a whole article about it.
        Retric 4y ago
        Let’s assume a random person across the street happened to make identical orders exactly when he did through random chance. Could Door Dash argue that person was being a nuisance?
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        Law looks at intent.
        Retric 4y ago
        Not for determining if something is a nuisance. It's like harm, you are either inconvenienced or you arn’t.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > "no the terms don’t apply here" Is that your legal opinion as a lawyer? It says that customers agree to only use promotional discounts "for the intended purpose"; what does that mean and how can you be sure a business owner using promotional discounts to profit from arbitrage is the "intended purpose" of the promotional discount?

> 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
    Seems like a deliberate nuisance?
    - Retric 4y ago
      He was making individual orders of a large but not extreme size every few days. That's hardly a nuisance.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        Seems like a meaningless distinction? The owner knows he’s being an ass - he wrote a whole article about it.
        Retric 4y ago
        Let’s assume a random person across the street happened to make identical orders exactly when he did through random chance. Could Door Dash argue that person was being a nuisance?
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        Law looks at intent.
        Retric 4y ago
        Not for determining if something is a nuisance. It's like harm, you are either inconvenienced or you arn’t.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > "no the terms don’t apply here" Is that your legal opinion as a lawyer? It says that customers agree to only use promotional discounts "for the intended purpose"; what does that mean and how can you be sure a business owner using promotional discounts to profit from arbitrage is the "intended purpose" of the promotional discount?