particular flashpoint has been the contracts
imposed by Uber Eats, which some restaurants
have decried as unfair.
THE AMBIGUITY AS TO WHO
IS DELIVERING... AND WHO
HAS RESPONSIBILITY
Food delivery, we’re sure we can all agree, is
an important service that must be performed
to a high standard. It may seem like a simple
enough task to take food and drink from A to
B, but if you request food to be brought to your
home or workplace, you won’t want something
that’s supposed to be hot to turn up cold, or vice
versa. In the event that you do end up being
disappointed in such a way, though, who should
you blame, and who should be putting the
situation right?
These questions have been central to a dispute
recently reported on by ABC News – that’s the
Australian news service, as opposed to the
American namesake we mentioned earlier.
According to business reporter David Chau,
restaurants interested in using Uber Eats’ delivery
service were expected to agree to “some dubious
contract terms”, such as: “You acknowledge... Uber
is a technology services provider... [which does
not] provide any delivery or logistics services.”
This rather contradicts the language that Chau
said was evident in various parts of the Uber Eats
website, with phrases including “You crave, we
deliver” and “Watch as we deliver [a California
Chicken Sandwich] to your curbside.” It also
doesn’t exactly tally with the fact that Uber
charges restaurants a hefty commission for
every delivery made.