Food stolen from counter in a takeaway

cormie

armaghlad wrote: »

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.

It may be slightly relevant if there's a legal time that would be viewed as reasonable that the customer didn't come back and it was assumed he wasn't coming back for product or change. Giving money to charity is never unreasonable, but would the takeaway have a legal right to that money after a certain amount of time? I've heard before that legally, places don't even need to give change, that if you give a 50 for something worth €5, €50 is your offer for it, and the establishment has no requirement to give change, but obviously everywhere does or they'd get no business

armaghlad

SteM wrote: »

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.

"The guy at the counter left the food and the change on the counter"

That to me is unattended. If the money isn't in the till or the customer's hand, it is unattended. Likewise if the food isn't in the customer's hand, or behind the till, it is unattended. Pedantry maybe but it's simple common sense that would negate anything like this ever happening.

KenjiOdo

I often wait outside or in the car while waiting on a takeaway. I hate standing at the counter waiting 10 mins for food to be cooked & don't see why people do. I either pay and receive change & go for a walk or pay on my return. The person working at this takeaway was very stupid to hand over change & food to someone else but mistakes happen & puts them at fault I presume.

Saying that I wouldn't be surprised if this was a scam of some form & the takeaway wised up to it refusing to take a hit. Where the 'scumbags' & 'victim' are in cahoots. If takeaway paid out they'd be up €50!

stefan.kuntz

gizmo555 wrote: »

Read the thread.

Are you the 'friend'?

How does the OP or the friend know that this is the exact sequence of events? Did the 'friend' see the change and food being left on the counter?

Mountainsandh

armaghlad wrote: »

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

I'm no legal eagle either, but "duty of care" I would associate with persons, as in Rayne Wooney's example. Fundamentally different of course.

I don't think there's a duty of anything but maybe customer service when it's chips and burgers you're dealing with. Imo customer service involves the customer abiding by their side of the contract, which is simply to remain on premises to complete transaction.

Either you're not freaking out about the value of your purchase, and you decide to step out and take a call/go to the shop... mid transaction, that's grand, that's your choice, and 99% of the time there's no problem...

... or you decide your purchase warrants staying on site until transaction is completed.

It's your choice, and your responsibility.

Not every responsibility can be pushed back onto the retailer. (I'm not a retailer or restaurant owner Btw)

Mountainsandh

armaghlad wrote: »

"The guy at the counter left the food and the change on the counter"

That to me is unattended. If the money isn't in the till or the customer's hand, it is unattended. Likewise if the food isn't in the customer's hand, or behind the till, it is unattended. Pedantry maybe but it's simple common sense that would negate anything like this ever happening.

Customer unavailable because off the premises, so the fact it's unattended is customer's prerogative.

TheChizler

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Imo customer service involves the customer abiding by their side of the contract, which is simply to remain on premises to complete transaction.

Is it? Is that part of contract law? Was it part of the terms and conditions presented to the friend before he ordered his burger?

TheChizler

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Customer unavailable because off the premises, so the fact it's unattended is customer's prerogative.

It was left unattended by the cashier, not the customer. It would be different if the cashier had given it to the friend and he then left it unattended.

stefan.kuntz

TheChizler wrote: »

before he ordered his burger?

I have been assuming this was a chinese.

OP, what sort of takeaway was it? Chinese, chipper, pizza, indian or other?

We need this vital piece of information.

Mountainsandh

TheChizler wrote: »

Is it? Is that part of contract law? Was it part of the terms and conditions presented to the friend before he ordered his burger?

Is the customer not needed on premises for a sale to take place ?
Are you saying it's not obvious to you that you should be there to receive your good ?

Little CuChulainn

gizmo555 wrote: »

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

Because they are the one that actually suffered the loss. Both the food and the change were property of the customer. It would also seem to fall under the definition of an owner in Section 2 (4) (c) of the Theft and Fraud Offences Act.

(c) where a person receives property from or on behalf of another, and is under an obligation to that other person to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, that other person shall be regarded (as against the first-mentioned person) as the owner of the property;

gizmo555

stefan.kuntz wrote: »

How does the OP or the friend know that this is the exact sequence of events? Did the 'friend' see the change and food being left on the counter?

Does a belief that the OP may not know exactly what happened justify the invention of "facts" by posters to support their arguments?

TheChizler

stefan.kuntz wrote: »

I have been assuming this was a chinese.

OP, what sort of takeaway was it? Chinese, chipper, pizza, indian or other?

We need this vital piece of information.

Yes. OP we need to find out if Chinese, Irish, Italian, or Indian contract law applies!

Mountainsandh

TheChizler wrote: »

It was left unattended by the cashier, not the customer. It would be different if the cashier had given it to the friend and he then left it unattended.

Had the customer been there, it wouldn't have been unattended, would it ? Had the customer been in the premises at that moment, yes, I would blame seller for not handing out goods to them.

coffeepls

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

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

I cracked up laughing there..... Comparing a child collection to change of €50 and food!

Anyway - for what it's worth, I think it is strange that the OP's friend gave them a 50 and did not wait for the change. I think the takeaway isn't doing themselves any favours by saying it's not at least partially their fault, for the sake of keeping customers. I would assume they'd replace the food. Its a very strange situation in all honesty.

TheChizler

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Is the customer not needed on premises for a sale to take place ?
Are you saying it's not obvious to you that you should be there to receive your good ?

To the first question, no. What about phone or internet sales? To the second, yes. He came back, and did not receive his goods as they had been given away already and they refused to replace them. The sale was not completed.

stefan.kuntz

gizmo555 wrote: »

Does a belief that the OP may not know exactly what happened justify the invention of "facts" by posters to support their arguments?

Why is he posting if he doesn't know exactly what happened?

esforum

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.

what Chinese does this? What Chinese does NOT dump the food down and shout a number and then walk away?

Different premises, different proceedures.

esforum

TheChizler wrote: »

To the first question, no. What about phone or internet sales? To the second, yes. He came back, and did not receive his goods as they had been given away already and they refused to replace them. The sale was not completed.

the sale was completed once the product left the care of the shop in their standard proceedure which as stated, is for the product to be left on the counter.

Want a comparison? In Supervalu, you walk away after paying at the till for your shopping but without the food. The next customer bags your food with theirs and walks, who is at fault?

Simple reality, the customer walked away and the premises offers no security on goods once they leave their hands.

stefan.kuntz

TheChizler wrote: »

Yes. OP we need to find out if Chinese, Irish, Italian, or Indian contract law applies!

Indeed, and if it was pizza, was it Pepperoni?

Mountainsandh

TheChizler wrote: »

To the first question, no. What about phone or internet sales? To the second, yes. He came back, and did not receive his goods as they had been given away already and they refused to replace them. The sale was not completed.

Phone and internet sales.

This is not the type of transaction at hand.

Mountainsandh

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Phone and internet sales.

This is not the type of transaction at hand.

Put it this way : if the goods had been a pair of wedding rings, with a value of 5 000, would the customer have walked away from the premises to take a phone call ?

Meant to edit my post, not self quote

biko

It's laughable that this is hashed out between two parties and scarcely a mention of the scumbags that stole the food.

Man up and either go after them or learn the lesson not to leave things unattended when there may be scumbags around.

armaghlad

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Customer unavailable because off the premises, so the fact it's unattended is customer's prerogative.

Fundamentally disagree. Shoddy customer service from the takeaway. The customer isn't blameless as his actions are part of the cause of the theft; but when you pay for something you should be given your change immediately after. Leaving the premises while waiting on food in a takeaway is not an unreasonable course of action.

ebbsy

Next time don't answer the phone when you are being served. It's basic common manners.

armaghlad

ebbsy wrote: »

Next time don't answer the phone when you are being served. It's basic common manners.

What if your food is taking ages? And you've waited 15/20 mins and no sign of it?

MadDog76

ebbsy wrote: »

Next time don't answer the phone when you are being served. It's basic common manners.

I couldn't count the amount of times a cashier in a takeaway answered the phone to take an order when I was giving my order at the counter ........ I was never offended it by it as it's a business transaction.

A customer is not obliged to be "mannerly" ....... a customer in a takeaway is obliged to pay for his/her food, a takeaway is obliged to put that paid for food into the customer's hand.

TheChizler

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Put it this way : if the goods had been a pair of wedding rings, with a value of 5 000, would the customer have walked away from the premises to take a phone call ?

Meant to edit my post, not self quote

I don't see why not. You hand over your money, the staff member goes away to get your rings out of the safe and get you change, you make a phone call, there's no way the staff member would just leave your rings on the counter for anyone to take. The only difference between this and the tajeaway is the value of the transaction.

TheChizler

biko wrote: »

It's laughable that this is hashed out between two parties and scarcely a mention of the scumbags that stole the food.

Man up and either go after them or learn the lesson not to leave things unattended when there may be scumbags around.

Would it not be up to the takeaway to get recourse from the person who took it? As far as I can see the customer and takeaway never completed their transaction, so the food wasn't the property of the customer yet (not so sure about the change, but it was last in possession of the cashier), therefore the food wasn't stolen from the customer, it was between the takeaway and the scumbag?

gizmo555

stefan.kuntz wrote: »

Why is he posting if he doesn't know exactly what happened?

You're the one who claims he doesn't know, not the OP

SteM

armaghlad wrote: »

"The guy at the counter left the food and the change on the counter"

That to me is unattended. If the money isn't in the till or the customer's hand, it is unattended. Likewise if the food isn't in the customer's hand, or behind the till, it is unattended. Pedantry maybe but it's simple common sense that would negate anything like this ever happening.

If there's someone there and the people that took the food and the change spoke to someone behind the counter then it wasn't unattended. The counter that had the food on it was attended meaning it couldn't be unattended.

SteM

esforum wrote: »

what Chinese does this? What Chinese does NOT dump the food down and shout a number and then walk away?

Different premises, different proceedures.

Where did I say a Chinese did it? I was specifically responding to a poster that was talking about buying a TV. My local chipper looks at receipts before handing the bag over for what it's worth.

stefan.kuntz

gizmo555 wrote: »

You're the one who claims he doesn't know, not the OP

I'm basing it on what the OP has posted. OP claims not to be the customer. Story is full of holes.

armaghlad

SteM wrote: »

If there's someone there and the people that took the food and the change spoke to someone behind the counter then it wasn't unattended. The counter that had the food on it was attended meaning it couldn't be unattended.

It is unattended. Unless they have eyes in the back of their head; having someone behind the counter does not altar that fact. Nor does the person who took the food speaking to them altar it either.

If the thief had just lifted the money and food on the sly without saying anything, and without anyone seeing; would you still say that it was attended to? Because if there is the potential for that to happen then it isn't been attended to.

dr.fuzzenstein

biko wrote: »

It's laughable that this is hashed out between two parties and scarcely a mention of the scumbags that stole the food.

Man up and either go after them or learn the lesson not to leave things unattended when there may be scumbags around.

Forget it, this has been mentioned a few times across this thread, but people are too busy shouting "THE CUSTOMER!" "THE TAKE WAY!" "THE CUSTOMER!" "THE TAKE AWAY!" to take note of this little detail. Just like any internet discussion its more important to SHOUT YOUR OPINION over everyone else.
Legally speaking, you don't say "who is responsible". You will say " who can I make responsible", because in the end you just want money for your own misfortune and it doesn't matter a sh*t where it comes from. If you can sue your Granny, you do it. Now that is legal.
Don't forget, honesty, decency, scruples and morals go out the window when it's time to go legal.

Mountainsandh

It's just another instance of someone trying to shift responsibility onto someone else imo. I get the feeling the person getting the take away was young, naive and somewhat immature when it comes to such dealings.

The opportunity for someone to steal the food would not have arisen had the customer been there to do what he/she's supposed to do : collect his/her food and change.

It a tough tough world out there, and some people just need to grow up, take responsibility, and act accordingly.

If a phone call being answered immediately is of paramount importance, then send someone else to get the food, get a home delivery, or simply wait until the phone call has passed before placing an order in a take away.

That's what being an adult is about. Make choices, decide on your priorities, and not rely on others to accommodate you (of course it's ok to enjoy it when they do).

You decide : stay and be sure to get your goods, or walk off the premises with the potential for some problems.

I don't see any obligation on a retailer to "mind" a customer's goods and change when the customer walks off the premises.

Mountainsandh

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Forget it, this has been mentioned a few times across this thread, but people are too busy shouting "THE CUSTOMER!" "THE TAKE WAY!" "THE CUSTOMER!" "THE TAKE AWAY!" to take note of this little detail. Just like any internet discussion its more important to SHOUT YOUR OPINION over everyone else.
Legally speaking, you don't say "who is responsible". You will say " who can I make responsible", because in the end you just want money for your own misfortune and it doesn't matter a sh*t where it comes from. If you can sue your Granny, you do it. Now that is legal.
Don't forget, honesty, decency, scruples and morals go out the window when it's time to go legal.

I think you're right in one regard : the obvious aim here is to get compensation from the take-away for the customer's mistake.

esforum

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Forget it, this has been mentioned a few times across this thread, but people are too busy shouting "THE CUSTOMER!" "THE TAKE WAY!" "THE CUSTOMER!" "THE TAKE AWAY!" to take note of this little detail. Just like any internet discussion its more important to SHOUT YOUR OPINION over everyone else.
Legally speaking, you don't say "who is responsible". You will say " who can I make responsible", because in the end you just want money for your own misfortune and it doesn't matter a sh*t where it comes from. If you can sue your Granny, you do it. Now that is legal.
Don't forget, honesty, decency, scruples and morals go out the window when it's time to go legal.

you do realise this area is called legal discussions right? The entire purpose of threads here is to flesh out and discuss legal questions and theories.

dr.fuzzenstein

esforum wrote: »

you do realise this area is called legal discussions right? The entire purpose of threads here is to flesh out and discuss legal questions and theories.

I know. And I think legally, the scumbag who took the food is responsible.
It is the same as shoplifting to my mind. Unless the legal brains here think no blame attaches to him.

Notavirus.exe

stefan.kuntz wrote: »

Are you the 'friend'?

How does the OP or the friend know that this is the exact sequence of events? Did the 'friend' see the change and food being left on the counter?

The food wasn't on the counter when he stood outside the door. It obviously was left on the counter after he left.

***There was nobody else in the place. It was only him and then the scumbags who entered soon later. The guy at the counter had no reason to leave the food and change on the counter. It should have been his responsibility to say "Sorry, the guy you're with needs to come in and say it's ok to take the food".***

SteM

armaghlad wrote: »

It is unattended. Unless they have eyes in the back of their head; having someone behind the counter does not altar that fact. Nor does the person who took the food speaking to them altar it either.

If the thief had just lifted the money and food on the sly without saying anything, and without anyone seeing; would you still say that it was attended to? Because if there is the potential for that to happen then it isn't been attended to.

Again, if there was someone there - and we know from the OP that there was - then it was not unattended. Doesn't matter how often you say it was unattended. It was badly attended but if there was someone there then it could not be unattended.

degsie

SteM wrote: »

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.

OP's friend must look like a scumbag in order for the merchant to believe the other scumbag. Scumbags have a particular 'look', right?

stefan.kuntz

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

The food wasn't on the counter when he stood outside the door. It obviously was left on the counter after he left.

***There was nobody else in the place. It was only him and then the scumbags who entered soon later. The guy at the counter had no reason to leave the food and change on the counter. It should have been his responsibility to say "Sorry, the guy you're with needs to come in and say it's ok to take the food".***

Did your friend see the guy at the counter leave the change and food on the counter?

Did your friend have visibility of the counter at all times?

Notavirus.exe

stefan.kuntz wrote: »

Did your friend see the guy at the counter leave the change and food on the counter?

Did your friend have visibility of the counter at all times?

No.

Therefore, no again.

stefan.kuntz

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

No.

Therefore, no again.

Thanks for confirming that most of what you have posted is supposition rather than fact.

MadDog76

stefan.kuntz wrote: »

Did your friend see the guy at the counter leave the change and food on the counter?

Did your friend have visibility of the counter at all times?

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

No.

Therefore, no again.

stefan.kuntz wrote: »

Thanks for confirming that most of what you have posted is supposition rather than fact.

Huh?

His friend knows exactly what happened to his food and change because he was told exactly what happened by the one person who had the food and change, the same person who handed the food and change over to the scumbags, ie. the cashier.

I know you thought you made a clever point there ......... but you didn't.

stefan.kuntz

MadDog76 wrote: »

Huh?

His friend knows exactly what happened to his food and change because he was told exactly what happened by the one person who had the food and change, the same person who handed the food and change over to the scumbags, ie. the cashier.

I know you thought you made a clever point there ......... but you didn't.

No, he has shown that he doesn't know what happened because he didn't see it. I didn't think that would be difficult to grasp, but I guess I didn't account for you in that, Poirot.

MadDog76

stefan.kuntz wrote: »

No, he has shown that he doesn't know what happened because he didn't see it. I didn't think that would be difficult to grasp, but I guess I didn't account for you in that, Poirot.

It took you 10 pages and 140+ posts to realise that!?!!?!! :rolleyes:

Notavirus.exe

stefan.kuntz wrote: »

No, he has shown that he doesn't know what happened because he didn't see it. I didn't think that would be difficult to grasp, but I guess I didn't account for you in that, Poirot.

What do you not understand? He saw the scumbags walking in and coming out with food, he went in soon after looking for his food and he was told by the counter guy that those guys took it.

stefan.kuntz

MadDog76 wrote: »

It took you 10 pages and 140+ posts to realise that!?!!?!! :rolleyes:

What are you wittering on about now?