Food stolen from counter in a takeaway

davo10

runawaybishop wrote: »

The norm is your change and food isn't given to a stranger.

Everyone is a "stranger" in a takeaway,. You order, pay and wait for your food.

Curb Your Enthusiasm

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

If he wasn't in shop, how does he know someone took it off the counter.

Oh dear. Read.

goz83

I have never waited more than a few seconds to get my change in a takeaway, so this doesn't make sense and I don't think the whole truth is in the OP.

However, if the customer paid and the staff did not give the change to the customer, then the takeaway is at fault. If the customer was in the premises when the food and change were left on the counter, it is the takeaways problem. Takeaways usually have cctv. The friend is an idiot, there is no question about it. But the change and food should not have been given to someone else.

Senna

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.

irishgeo

Surely a contract is in place. A verbal one.

Customer asked to be supplied with goods. He didn't get despite having paid for them.

I think they has a case.

davo10

irishgeo wrote: »

Surely a contract is in place. A verbal one.

Customer asked to be supplied with goods. He didn't get despite having paid for them.

I think they has a case.

What "case", a legal "case"? Are you talking about a criminal "case" or a consumer "case"?.

Rayne Wooney

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.

The only way the friend is at fault is if he saw the guy put the change on the counter before he went out for the phone call, that would mean he knew his change was on a counter anyone could take from but decided to risk it.

By reading the post it seems more likely that the restaurant took the risk putting the change on the counter waiting for the friend to come back in, that imo puts the blame on the restaurant without a doubt, they were in possession of the food and money so what they did without the guy knowing falls on them.

Little CuChulainn

Is this really a matter of contract law? It was a theft. It doesn't matter who should have done what. The only argument is who is the victim for the purpose of a criminal complaint.

TheChizler

I imagine it would be the same situation as if the cashier turned around and just didn't see the customer, and handed it to some randomer. Doesn't really matter where the customer was as they didn't attempt to give it to him.

Greenmachine

Who walks away from a cash transaction like that to take a call? What was the staff member supposed to do chain the food to the counter till the said customer returned. If I leave something of value unattended I have to expected that there is a risk that it might be taken. As soon as the OP friend hand over €50, the take-away contract obligation ended bringing the food to the counter top. They can't just give paying customer food to anyone, but they can't be holding up paying customers for flighty customers who don't know if they are coming or going.

looksee

Whatever about the legalities, that is a seriously unlikely scenario described in the op.

Rayne Wooney

Greenmachine wrote: »

Who walks away from a cash transaction like that to take a call? What was the staff member supposed to do chain the food to the counter till the said customer returned. If I leave something of value unattended I have to expected that there is a risk that it might be taken. As soon as the OP friend hand over €50, the take-away contract obligation ended bringing the food to the counter top. They can't just give paying customer food to anyone, but they can't be holding up paying customers for flighty customers who don't know if they are coming or going.

He didn't leave it unattended, he left it with the restaurant who apparently left it unattended/gave it to someone else

It all boils down to whether the friend saw or gave the okay to leave the stuff on the counter because then it becomes his risk not the restaurant but if he didn't know then how could it be his fault, it's the restaurants regardless of whether or not it was rude of him to take the phone call

Bongalongherb

In all fairness to the thread... you do not leave your goods unattended at any time whether inside or outside of a retail or takeaway premises. The OP's friend was in the wrong and should have been there personally for the transaction to be complete and security of the produce and cash/change return.

There's no point in making a mountain out of a mole-hill as the customer needs to be there for the security of the full transaction to be complete and then leave in the knowledge that the transaction was completed in a logical manner. Interesting post, but the customer on this one is in the wrong and has no-one else to blame but him/herself.

Rayne Wooney

Yep the customer does need to be there for the security of the transaction, which is precisely why the restaurant should have waited until he came back in before leaving his money and food on a counter unattended

Notavirus.exe

goz83 wrote: »

I have never waited more than a few seconds to get my change in a takeaway, so this doesn't make sense and I don't think the whole truth is in the OP.

Sorry, I should have made this clear - My friend was ordering food for himself and a few friends so the guy at the counter would have had to take a significant amount of time to calculate the total bill.

And another thing - He went outside while the food was still being cooked, he DID NOT leave it on the counter. He ordered it and paid for it. The food and change was being prepared while he was outside on the phone. The guy at the counter left the food and his change on the counter and then the group of people came in and claimed to be with him and took his food and money. He was still outside when this happened.

BettePorter

That still doesn't make sense. Joe chippy doesn't care if he ordering one chip or a feast for a stag do..... its the one transaction. And it still takes as long as him
handing over 50 / tilling / handing back change. Unless ur local chippy needs a deposit for large orders ??? And if he ordering for ppl behind him, surely they still there whilst he outside. I think you should clarify what time this happened and what state Joe moneybags was in at the time! Was he pissed?

If he was, ive seen that guy! 4am....... The big I am! 'Here my good man, I'm loaded........ pls take my 50 euro and feed all these boyos I barely know........ I ****in love this fella....., oh wait.... me pockets vibrating...,... howye Jimmy .... wait til I go outside I cant hear ya.......,

Notavirus.exe

Notavirus.exe wrote:

Sorry, I should have made this clear - My friend was ordering food for himself and a few friends so the guy at the counter would have had to take a significant amount of time to calculate the total bill.

I still don't see how he would have been asked to hand over any money if the bill wasn't calculated.

Also, If the bill was under 50, there couldn't have been too many transactions, never mind enough to cause a "significant amount of time" that would excuse walking out to take a call

Notavirus.exe

BettePorter wrote: »

That still doesn't make sense. Joe chippy doesn't care if he ordering one chip or a feast for a stag do..... its the one transaction. And if he ordering for ppl behind him, surely they still there whilst he outside. I think you should clarify what time this happened and what state Joe moneybags was in at the time! Was he pissed?

His friends weren't with him.

Mountainsandh

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.

Notavirus.exe

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Remaining on premises when engaging in a transaction, until transaction is completed is not a hard concept to grasp in fairness.

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.

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.