3 ms·

And Uber may still wind up on the losing end of a lawsuit about pushing drivers to take on vehicles based on false pretenses ( Uber telling the drivers that the

by olefoo 12y ago

And Uber may still wind up on the losing end of a lawsuit about pushing drivers to take on vehicles based on false pretenses ( Uber telling the drivers that there would be enough work to justify them financing a vehicle for Uber usage). Uber's efforts to shed itself of all liability and risk in terms of employees and assets is legendary; but they could still find themselves going up against the IRS on the question of whether drivers are employees or freelancers. Most especially with drivers that they referred to auto-financing. The theory being that having a requirement for a minimum standard of car and providing finance referrals would be similar to requiring "independent contractors" to wear uniforms.

Alupis 12y ago
> Uber telling the drivers that there would be enough work to justify them financing a vehicle for Uber usage It seems incredibly unwise to finance a $20,000 USD vehicle hedging on some third party (of which you have zero control over) to provide enough for you to pay it through.
- olefoo 12y ago
  Generally, if you tell someone that taking on a debt obligation is a condition of doing business with you and make representations to the effect that they will be able to earn enough to meet that obligation based on their projected earnings from your contractual agreement with them that would be considered an implied contract. If you then manipulate things such that they are effectively unable to meet their obligations because you are jerking them around they are certainly going to be able to find a lawyer who will take their case. Particularly if you were referring them to the auto-dealership and pre-qualifying them for financing.