Food stolen from counter in a takeaway

Stheno

Your friend is in the wrong here tbh, left the premises without completing the transaction at the end of the day

Notavirus.exe

Stheno wrote: »

Your friend is in the wrong here tbh, left the premises without completing the transaction at the end of the day

What do you mean by "without completing the transaction"? That seems contradictory to me. If the transaction WAS complete, the ownership would be passed onto the customer and it would be the customer's responsibility to stop strangers taking it.

Does this seem right to you?:
I send (for example) Argos money to deliver me a washing machine. The next day they ring me and say "Hey, someone came in here and stole your washing machine while we were in possession of it. You paid for it, it was yours, tough shit it's not our fault".
Well, does it seem right? It's the same with the takeaway scenario.

BettePorter

Op can u clarify time and condition of customer. 4pm? 4am? Because I think if uve ever been in a chip shop, its relevant.

Notavirus.exe

BettePorter wrote: »

Op can u clarify time and condition of customer. 4pm? 4am? Because I think if uve ever been in a chip shop, its relevant.

Condition... What?

About 4 PM.

Rayne Wooney

Many moons ago I worked in retail and situations like this would happen, customer hands over cash and then runs off to get something else they forgot quickly, if I remember correctly the procedure wasn't to give the change and bag of goods to the next customer in line or any bystander

The phone call bit seems to irk people and sway opinion but it is irrelevant really, the restaurant had the money and food in their possession and they gave it to someone who wasn't the person that paid them for it

esforum

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

To be fair, the counter guy was negligent.

Imagine if you bought a car from a dealership and the same thing happened to you. You'd be pissed off at the salesman*, wouldn't you? I know there's a difference between a car and food, but it's the same thing in reality.

*EDIT: Well, not just pissed off. You'd think it was his fault.

I wouldnt pay 20 grand for a car then walk out the door when I knew full well the keys would simple be placed on an accessible counter though.

Mind you I wouldnt leave a chipper to take a call either

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Many moons ago I worked in retail and situations like this would happen, customer hands over cash and then runs off to get something else they forgot quickly, if I remember correctly the procedure wasn't to give the change and bag of goods to the next customer in line or any bystander

The phone call bit seems to irk people and sway opinion but it is irrelevant really, the restaurant had the money and food in their possession and they gave it to someone who wasn't the person that paid them for it

thats a point but at the end of the day different premises and retail industries operate in a different manner, in a chinese takeaway the food is just placed down and a number / name / order is called. The counter staff arent dealing one on one with people from start to finish.

By the same token I have never waited for my change to come with the food, how long was this phonecall?

I also agree with Dunne, you order, they tally the price, you pay, they give change and then you wait for ten minutes for the food which is placed on a counter and left there, SOP for a Chinese takeaway

Potential Underachiever

So, did matey have to leave the premises with with no food and down 50 quid? Imagine the anger , you're hungry for a feed then this **** happens!

topmanamillion

I don't think it's fair what happened to your friend.
Now another takeaway may well have redone the order (either free or at a reduced price).
At face value the takeaway doesn't seem to have even said there was shared responsibility and both your friend and the takeaway were victims.
While your friend has a point that they should only have given the food to him. I think there's also a point that they should have stayed in the takeaway once they had paid.
Conclusion;chalk it down to experience and don't return to that particular takeaway.

BettePorter

From the food servers point of view....... the so called 'scumbags' could very well have been with the first guy and then he's back claiming he got neither food nor money. From his perspective, what moron hands over 50 quid and walks away before getting change into hand.

Also, you say he paid, got phonecall , went outside, while he outside the scumbags went in, ordered food, waited, left and THEN ur mate went back in snd realised his food and money gone. That was some important call he got !

SimonTemplar

I'm not a legal expert but I saw this thread on the main page and it interesed me.

Personally I think the phone call is irrelevent. The core issue is that the customer paid for the goods but did not receive them. They were still under the possession of the business and had not yet been 'transferred' to the customer. Therefore the business did not fulfil the order which had been paid for.


If I buy a TV from a shop and I ask them to wheel it around to a collection point for me to collect, but some other chancer sees it before I arrive, claims to know me and drives off with it, I would expect the shop to get me another TV and I would not have to pay for the one I didn't receive due to THEIR negligence.

I think if you ignore the fact that its a chipper and the phone call, and look at the general principle of the fact that the business was negligent in giving paid goods to the wrong person, it seems logical to me that the customer should get a replacement or shouldn't have to pay.

Mountainsandh

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

With all due respect, not giving someone's food and money to a group of dirty looking scumbags is not a hard concept to grasp either.

If someone pays for goods or services, they would expect that said goods and/or services would be delivered the correct person.

Imagine ordering a pizza and asking them to deliver it and when they get to your driveway, a stranger walks up to them and says "This is my house, thanks". (I realise the stranger would have to pay but let's pretend you used a credit card and already paid for it).
Who is in the wrong? You? Or what about the guy who was negligent enough to NOT MAKE SURE THEY WERE GIVING THE GOODS TO THE PERSON WHO PAID FOR THEM?

I use caps lock to emphasise things, not to "shout" as some people may believe.

But if your friend had remained on the premises, the man behind the counter simply would not have been put in this position. Why did it happen in the first place ? Because your friend walked away.

punisher5112

Its actually quite simple op.

Friend should have and needs to report to gardai and also request cctv be kept if any.

You need to pursue the person/s that robbed you.

Get onto it right away.

No point chasing take away as friend did go outside.

SteM

SimonTemplar wrote: »

If I buy a TV from a shop and I ask them to wheel it around to a collection point for me to collect, but some other chancer sees it before I arrive, claims to know me and drives off with it, I would expect the shop to get me another TV and I would not have to pay for the one I didn't receive due to THEIR negligence.

This is exactly what happens in powercity but they have a process in place. They check the receipt before they hand it over. The chippy obviously doesn't have this process in place, even if they had the OP's friend wandered off before he got the change and receipt.

gizmo555

punisher5112 wrote: »

You need to pursue the person/s that robbed you.

Isn't this the point? There's no doubt the money and food was stolen, but who was it stolen from? The takeaway or the customer?

Despite this being the legal discussion forum, there's been a lot of heated dogmatic opinion, some people ignoring the facts and making up their own, but no legal light at all on this question.

Obviously nobody would go to law over such a small sum, but it would still be interesting to know what the actual legal position is. Anybody?

Mountainsandh

SteM wrote: »

This is exactly what happens in powercity but they have a process in place. They check the receipt before they hand it over. The chippy obviously doesn't have this process in place, even if they had the OP's friend wandered off before he got the change and receipt.

Agreed.
Like, if there is going to be a consistent delay in a chipper, said chipper might organize a way that food is collected later. They could take names down, or give a little ticket, or give a receipt... That's fair enough, in that case transaction goes : order food, pay-get ticket/receipt, go back to collect food. They do that in the beauuuutiful chipper in Kilmore Quay in the summer.
In that situation, had the take-away given the food to another, they would have been in the wrong.

In this case it seems to me that the transaction is just your normal take-away procedure : order food, pay, wait, receive food, leave.

Your friend did not wait on premises. Really, that's the bottom line. Your friend just didn't want to stand there and wait, and made the decision to walk out and take a phonecall.

If that happened to Mr M and he came back with that story, he'd get an earful from me for walking out, I don't see how the take-away could possibly be blamed.

Little CuChulainn

gizmo555 wrote: »

Isn't this the point? There's no doubt the money and food was stolen, but who was it stolen from? The takeaway or the customer?

Despite this being the legal discussion forum, there's been a lot of heated dogmatic opinion, some people ignoring the facts and making up their own, but no legal light at all on this question.

Obviously nobody would go to law over such a small sum, but it would still be interesting to know what the actual legal position is. Anybody?

The ops friend is the victim because they are the one that suffered the loss. So they should report the matter to the Gardaí and learn a valuable lesson. If it was for a bigger amount then it might be worth going after the chippy for a refund but with the amount in question it will only be solved by agreement.

gizmo555

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The ops friend is the victim because they are the one that suffered the loss.

Again, what is the legal principle that says it was the customer's loss, rather than the takeaway's?

SteM

gizmo555 wrote: »

Again, what is the legal principle that says it was the customer's loss, rather than the takeaway's?

The takeaway got paid for the goods and suffered no loss. The customer was the only one to loose out.

gizmo555

SteM wrote: »

The takeaway got paid for the goods and suffered no loss.

That's how it worked out. The question is, legally, should it have borne the loss?

armaghlad

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It seems obvious to me that when taking part in a transaction, such as in a take away, you remain on the premises. Same as you wouldn't leave the Dunnes' cashier and premises mid transaction, no ?
I think the customer has only himself to blame. Remaining on premises when engaging in a transaction, until transaction is completed is not a hard concept to grasp in fairness.

Not really. It's not uncommon to place an order, nip out to the cash machine or shop next door while the food is being cooked and return and collect your food. Such is the nature of takeaway food outlets. Sure you can order over the phone and collect without physically being on the premises so no, it's not obvious at all.

As for the friend he's a bit of an eejit and deserves some of the blame. If I handed over €50 cash, I wouldn't wander off without getting my change and in this case my food.

The takeaway employee though is a ****ing idiot. Why the **** would he leave a customer's money (and food) lying out on the counter unattended? If I was the friend I wouldn't have left until I had my food and my change. Usually you'd expect them to set it behind the counter until you return.

Your friends are owed €50 by that establishment and the least I would be doing is naming and shaming the business on social media (you can start here) for their utter ****wittery.

stefan.kuntz

armaghlad wrote: »

Not really. It's not uncommon to place an order, nip out to the cash machine or shop next door while the food is being cooked and return and collect your food. Such is the nature of takeaway food outlets. Sure you can order over the phone and collect without physically being on the premises so no, it's not obvious at all.

As for the friend he's a bit of an eejit and deserves some of the blame. If I handed over €50 cash, I wouldn't wander off without getting my change and in this case my food.

The takeaway employee though is a ****ing idiot. Why the **** would he leave a customer's money (and food) lying out on the counter unattended? If I was the friend I wouldn't have left until I had my food and my change. Usually you'd expect them to set it behind the counter until you return.

Your friends are owed €50 by that establishment and the least I would be doing is naming and shaming the business on social media (you can start here) for their utter ****wittery.

Can we name the friend also please?

degsie

Your 'friend' was pig ass rude to take a call while engaged in a transaction with another person. Karma rules.

clocks

Bongalongherb wrote: »

It makes no difference. The customer paid for his/her order and was awaiting for change and food but decides that a phone-call is more important and so leaves the premises when he/she should have waited. It's no-one else's fault except the customers, you don't walk out at the end of an order. You take your food and change and then walk out and answer the phone.

These places are busy enough than to be standing there waiting for the customer to finish his private phone-call and come back in at his/her leisure.

How far has society fallen that we now blame people for being the victim of crimes ? Are people not entitled to answer their phones in their own locality ? You wouldn't dare blame a female crime victim like that. It may be unwise, or even a bit careless, to answer the phone druing a transaction but it is hardly the worse thing in the world.

Legally, however, it does make a difference. The money and food were still in the custody and care of the seller (or waiter) and the fact that the local scumbags (the most culpulable & criminal here) claimed to be with the customer in order to extract them proves this fact.

It is perfectly reasonable to expect someone you are paying for both goods and a service to perform that responsibly. Lots of businesses, inculding takeaways are busy, that is not an excuse to fail any one customer. What matters is the duty they owe to each individual.

Its a takeaway. Your friend knows how they work and that its totally normal for food to be left on the counter as they move on to serve the next person. Your friend was negligent (as well as rude) and has nobody to blame but himself.

TheChizler

IMO where the friend was is entirely irrelevant, maybe a little rude and careless but irrelevant.

If for example it was crowded and the friend had stayed at the till while waiting for his change and food, and the cashier had simply come back and not seen him and then given his food and change to the wrong person, I don't think anybody could argue the friend was at fault. What actually happened was the exact same situation from the cashier's point of view, they came back, couldn't see the friend, and gave his property to someone else. They performed the same actions as in that hypothetical scenario where they definitely would have been at fault. Why does the location of the friend matter in this case?

IMO the takeaway owe your friend €50, it would be worth getting on to a manager.

HugoRune

Nobody knows the circumstances of the delay in making change or the nature of the phone call, but in truth it doesn't matter. As described in the OP, the takeaway appears to be negligent in leaving both the food and the change unguarded the counter.

For all we know, the phone call may not have been rude at all.

"Hi Ma. What? Dad has fallen off the roof? Hold on, I can't hear what you are saying with the loud music in here. I'll just go outside. That's better, I can hear you now. Is he hurt? Not too badly you say -- fell on the haycock and is walking around. Yes, I'll be back to take him to the doctor, I've just ordered the takeaway, but shouldn't be long. Mary behind the counter had to nip in next door to get change of the €50, but I see she's back now so I think the food is ready. Actually I better go inside in case she gives those scumbags my stuff, ha ha ha! See you shortly."

armaghlad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Its a takeaway. Your friend knows how they work and that its totally normal for food to be left on the counter as they move on to serve the next person. Your friend was negligent (as well as rude) and has nobody to blame but himself.

What takeaway do you go to, that
1. Doesn't give you your change straight away and
2. Leaves it lying there along with your food, despite you not being there when the order was called for collection. Anyone with a sense of gumption would keep it behind the counter until the customer presented themselves.

MadDog76

I seriously wonder if some of the posters on this thread have ever even been to a takeaway!!

Whenever I'm in a takeaway I rarely hang around at the counter after giving an order, I usually go outside for a cigarette, make a phone call, have a chat, get some fresh air or whatever. I don't expect the lad behind the counter to hand my food over to anybody but me!
It was me that ordered the food, it was me that paid (or will be paying) for the food so it is me that should be handed the food and nobody else!

What if the friend ordered the food (but didn't pay yet) then went outside to take his call and on his return was told by the takeaway that they gave his/her food to somebody else .......... would the friend still be expected to pay? Would you pay??
I certainly wouldn't pay because the takeaway is at fault here, end of.

The Op's friend should have called the Guards and waited in the takeaway.

Mountainsandh

armaghlad wrote: »

Not really. It's not uncommon to place an order, nip out to the cash machine or shop next door while the food is being cooked and return and collect your food. Such is the nature of takeaway food outlets. Sure you can order over the phone and collect without physically being on the premises so no, it's not obvious at all.

That's how people wish to conduct the transaction, people choose to nip away to the shop next door, get their cash, etc... and take aways oblige for convenience.

The default transaction is order, pay, wait, get.

"what people sometimes like to do" is usage, and the issue here.
He did what people sometimes like to do and got stung.

Mountainsandh

TheChizler wrote: »

IMO where the friend was is entirely irrelevant, maybe a little rude and careless but irrelevant.

If for example it was crowded and the friend had stayed at the till while waiting for his change and food, and the cashier had simply come back and not seen him and then given his food and change to the wrong person, I don't think anybody could argue the friend was at fault. What actually happened was the exact same situation from the cashier's point of view, they came back, couldn't see the friend, and gave his property to someone else. They performed the same actions as in that hypothetical scenario where they definitely would have been at fault. Why does the location of the friend matter in this case?

IMO the takeaway owe your friend €50, it would be worth getting on to a manager.

The location of the friend at the time totally matters !
I agree, if the friend was on the premises, waiting in a crowded room, the onus would have been on the seller to locate the customer and hand over goods to proper customer. If there is difficulty in locating customers in a busy premises, the onus is on the seller to ensure that some system is in place to identify right customer. (usually receipt of course)
Absolutely.

Customer was not on the premises ! How can it possibly be the same situation ?

mightyreds

Mountainsandh wrote: »

That's how people wish to conduct the transaction, people choose to nip away to the shop next door, get their cash, etc... and take aways oblige for convenience.

The default transaction is order, pay, wait, get.

"what people sometimes like to do" is usage, and the issue here.
He did what people sometimes like to do and got stung.

Yeah any takeaway I've been to and one i work in, it usually goes order, pay, wait, get, or order, wait, get, pay and as in "get" i mean its left on the counter and after you receive your change you take it, I've never seen anyone pay and then just walk off without the change.

TheChizler

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Customer was not on the premises ! How can it possibly be the same situation ?

The cashier didn't necessarily know that. From their perspective, as you say, they had difficulty finding them and should have checked receipts.

Mountainsandh

TheChizler wrote: »

The cashier didn't necessarily know that. From their perspective, as you say, they had difficulty finding them and should have checked receipts.

How do you know that ?

Allyall

Senna wrote: »

Assuming this is a fast food takeaway, 99.9% work on cash is paid at start and change given immediately or cash is given at end and change given immediately. If the OPs friend was in any normal establishment, then the friend is 100% at fault.
If this establishment has some bizarre cash tendering procedure, them maybe the establishment is at fault, but I doubt it.

Exactly.
Anytime I've ordered in a takeaway, they give you your cash immediately. If he walked away as they were giving it to him, then he is at fault, and ignorant.
However, if the staff member waited until he was outside before putting the change on the counter, then he would surely have to answer for some blame.
What if it was the toilet and not a phone, and in a coffee shop, not a takeaway?
If the staff had put the change on the table while he was in there, and it was taken, surely the shop would be to blame.

armaghlad

Mountainsandh wrote: »

That's how people wish to conduct the transaction, people choose to nip away to the shop next door, get their cash, etc... and take aways oblige for convenience.

The default transaction is order, pay, wait, get.

"what people sometimes like to do" is usage, and the issue here.
He did what people sometimes like to do and got stung.

There is a duty of care that has been ignored by the takeaway. It's negligence on their part. If this happened to me, I wouldn't leave the shop without my food and change. I'd call the police if necessary. There is a small claims court in the north and I'd definitely threaten legal action.

TheChizler

Mountainsandh wrote: »

How do you know that ?

Know that the cashier didn't necessarily know where the friend was? Cause the cashier isn't here to confirm one way or another? Clearly if they knew where they were they would have found them. If they couldn't leave the counter they shouldn't give the food to anyone but the customer without the customer's consent.

Mountainsandh

A duty of care in a take away ?

TheChizler

Mountainsandh wrote: »

A duty of care in a take away ?

A duty of care is surely standard in any business.

Mountainsandh

TheChizler wrote: »

Know that the cashier didn't necessarily know where the friend was? Cause the cashier isn't here to confirm one way or another? Clearly if they knew where they were they would have found them. If they couldn't leave the counter they shouldn't give the food to anyone but the customer without the customer's consent.

Are you suggesting the cashier, seeing the customer leave the premises to take a phone call, should have stepped out from behind the counter, and gone outside to fetch the customer to complete transaction ?

That's where I completely disagree.

Some take aways might indeed do things like that out of courtesy, or zeal, but I don't think it is part of their duty as take away attendants/owners.

Person A in transaction is take away seller, person B customer.

Person A is processing transaction as he should, person B walks away.
Person A has to complete transaction without person B.
So yes, leave on counter if they think it's safe, or hand over to someone who claims to be with person B. Person B relinquished their right to give out about it when they walked out mid transaction.

armaghlad

Mountainsandh wrote: »

A duty of care in a take away ?

I'm not a legal eagle.. what's the correct terminology?

TheChizler

I specifically said that if they can't do that they shouldn't give it to the next person they see.

MadDog76

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Are you suggesting the cashier, seeing the customer leave the premises to take a phone call, should have stepped out from behind the counter, and gone outside to fetch the customer to complete transaction ?

What the cashier should have done was kept the food behind the counter until the customer returned, simple really.

When the cashier was approached by these randomers claiming ownership he should have told them "I'll give the food and change to your friend when he comes back in", again really simple.

cormie

I skipped a page or two, not sure this has been asked yet, but if it was established to be the fault of the take away, at what stage of abandonment would their liability lift? I mean if someone was gone for 2 minutes, they may seem liable, if someone left and didn't come back for several hours, does the liability lift based on the assumption they aren't coming back? Who would the change legally belong to after a certain amount of time had it been a quiet shop where nobody else took it, but it was simply left for hours or days?

armaghlad

cormie wrote: »

I skipped a page or two, not sure this has been asked yet, but if it was established to be the fault of the take away, at what stage of abandonment would their liability lift? I mean if someone was gone for 2 minutes, they may seem liable, if someone left and didn't come back for several hours, does the liability lift based on the assumption they aren't coming back? Who would the change legally belong to after a certain amount of time had it been a quiet shop where nobody else took it, but it was simply left for hours or days?

Are those questions really relevant? I'd imagine, any business with a shred of integrity would hold onto the change for that weekend at least, and if no one ever came forward to claim it put it in the charity box after say a week. That's not an unreasonable course of action.

MadDog76

cormie wrote: »

I skipped a page or two, not sure this has been asked yet, but if it was established to be the fault of the take away, at what stage of abandonment would their liability lift? I mean if someone was gone for 2 minutes, they may seem liable, if someone left and didn't come back for several hours, does the liability lift based on the assumption they aren't coming back? Who would the change legally belong to after a certain amount of time had it been a quiet shop where nobody else took it, but it was simply left for hours or days?

Anybody who walks in and claims it apparently ........ according to the takeaway!

Rayne Wooney

If you drop your child off at a daycare and pay for them to mind the child you wouldn't expect them to leave the child unattended at an open front door at 4 o clock if you weren't there yet

Some people seem to have taken a "well good for him, karma" stance because of the phone call when it doesn't matter because he paid for the food and the cashier gave his food and change to someone that wasn't him apparently without his knowledge

SteM

The people to blame here are the lads that stole the money. The people blaming the staff or the OP are both off imo. It's not like one poster said - the staff did not give it to the next person to come along. They gave it to people that lied and said they were with the OP's friend.

SteM

BTW, I've been in plenty of takeaways (some would say too many) and every one was the same process

- make order
- pay
- get change/receipt
- wait for food
- collect food

If I go outside or nip to the shop I'll tell the counter staff. I've never seen a takeaway or chipper give change with the food.

armaghlad

SteM wrote: »

The people to blame here are the lads that stole the money. The people blaming the staff or the OP are both off imo. It's not like one poster said - the staff did not give it to the next person to come along. They gave it to people that lied and said they were with the OP's friend.

The staff didn't give the food to anyone. They left it unattended on the counter. Along with the money. I've worked in a shop before and never in my life would I leave a customer's money lying unattended for someone to else to potentially lift. Also if someone came in claiming the food was theirs I'd at least exercise some caution and ask them what the order was. The takeaway owe the OP's friend a refund and an apology.

SteM

armaghlad wrote: »

The staff didn't give the food to anyone. They left it unattended on the counter. Along with the money. I've worked in a shop before and never in my life would I leave a customer's money lying unattended for someone to else to potentially lift. Also if someone came in claiming the food was theirs I'd at least exercise some caution and ask them what the order was. The takeaway owe the OP's friend a refund and an apology.

It wasn't unattended. The OP said

The scumbags told the one at the counter that they were with my friend and took the food and change and left.

So there was someone there. It wasn't unattended.