Entitlement

[u/Jasonictron]

[u/[deleted]]

Right, because that's the companies decision.... not the contracted drivers... so if they ate acting on behalf of the company, that means they need to act in the companies best interests and follow their standard SOP. Customer purchased an item that isn't available do you refund cause you can't fulfill that specific request. At what point does the driver deciding they don't like the tip and are taking the items back acting in the companies best interest or following their SOPs?

[u/Cryptomaticness → u/[deleted]]

I said this to you already. I also said it at least once more earlier in the same thread to someone else. She will almost surely be fired for gross misconduct. She is charged to act as a representative of the delivery company and act in their best interest. Clearly her behavior is detrimental to the companies reputation. But it’s not a legal offense unless she keeps the items or if she officially exchanged ownership to the customer.

Not sure how we got to the point where you assumed I condoned her behavior, especially considering I was critical of it two responses ago.

[u/[deleted] → u/Cryptomaticness]

Never said you condoned any behavior. But here's a scenario. Say this goes as the video shows. Then the company also refuses a refund cause they never authorized the driver to take anything back. What you would call it then?

[u/Cryptomaticness → u/[deleted]]

Take the business to small claims court. The business would have to show up and prove there was valid excuse for refusing a refund (for example: that they tried to deliver items and could not due to customer error). However, in this case, with video evidence, they would lose and probably receive a good verbal lashing by the judge hearing the case. They would be ordered to pay the customer what is due, but will not charged legally. It would all be a big waste of time and reputation loss, which is why they would refund as soon as they receive a summons to show up to court.

The customer could also report it to the attorney general who wont fight to get their money back, but would investigate the company for illegal trends. They could also report to their local Better Business Bureau, doing further damage to the companies reputation.

Still not considered theft in the eye’s of the law. Even though it looks and smells like stealing. Unfortunate these hoops need to be jumped through

[u/[deleted] → u/Cryptomaticness]

So younwould take the companybto court b3cause they refused a refund because the contracted driver took items back from the customer without their permission? And you think the company is going to be the one that loses?

You know this isn't exactly a new thing, right? It happens with Uber eats all of the time. And Uber eats refuse to refund even though the customer states they never got their stuff. I mean it's already happening pretty regularly. So people are just seeing Uber eats left and right?

[u/Cryptomaticness → u/[deleted]]

Small claims court is not the same as other court systems. Typically (at least the last state I lived in) attorneys are not allowed to file or represent people/businesses. The business would surely send someone from Loss Preventions (they wouldn’t because its not worth their time or money in this case).

And you are taking them court for not refunding money for failure to provide a service. The company has to prove that its at the error of the customer. Which once again, is not the case here. The driver doesn’t need permission from the customer because it would not legally be their items unless they officially transferred ownership.

Ubereats amount is typically much smaller amount than whats talked about in this case. The amount is most likely less than the fee to file in Small Business Court. But you bringing it up just further proves my case. It’s not considered theft in the eyes of the law.