With the quickening pace of people's life, more and more catering enterprises begin to provide delivery services, especially for fast food restaurants. Who can provide more convenient and quick delivery services has become an important criterion for customers to choose restaurants. However, in the context of food and beverage delivery, the accompanying legal issues can not be ignored. How to provide convenient and fast delivery services and more standardized delivery services should be the concern of relevant catering industry operators. Recently, combined with relevant cases, the judges of Haidian District People's Court in Beijing investigated the legal disputes over the delivery of food and beverage industry, and gave relevant tips on how consumers can protect their rights.
the charge standard of delivery fee must be informed in advance
● Related cases
There is a restaurant near Mr. Wang's company. Because it promises to deliver food within 3 kilometers free of charge and the price of food is reasonable, Mr. Wang often orders lunch in this restaurant. One day in August last year, Mr. Wang ordered lunch at the restaurant as usual. It was raining heavily in Beijing that day, and when the restaurant delivery staff delivered the food to Mr. Wang's company, they asked him to pay an extra two yuan for delivery. Mr. Wang thinks that it is unreasonable for restaurants to charge two yuan for delivery. In this regard, the restaurant explained that the weather was bad that day, and it was harder for the delivery staff to deliver food in the rain than usual. The service charge of two yuan was the hard work for the delivery staff. Mr. Wang believes that the restaurant has promised to deliver food free of charge within 3 kilometers, and its company is within the scope of free food delivery in the restaurant, but the restaurant has not stated that it will charge extra for delivery in bad weather, so it should not charge extra without prior notice. There was a dispute between the two parties, and Mr. Wang appealed to Haidian District Court. After mediation by Haidian District Court, Mr. Wang reached a settlement with the restaurant, and the restaurant refunded the extra delivery fee of two yuan.
● The judge reminds
Sui Qiuhong, a judge of the First People's Court of Haidian District, said that when catering enterprises formulate delivery service specifications, they actually formulate a format contract for delivery service. Whether it is marked on the menu or printed on the distributed delivery leaflet, as long as the time, delivery scope and charging standard of delivery service are clearly stated, it constitutes the terms of the format contract for delivery service. When a customer requests delivery service from a restaurant, it is deemed that he is bound by the terms of the contract in this format. It should be noted that, according to the basic principles of the Contract Law, the terms of the contract must be clear and known to customers. Moreover, the terms of the format contract should be established. After the contract is reached, that is, after the restaurant agrees to provide delivery services to customers, both parties shall not change the terms of the contract at will. If it is necessary to change the terms of the contract, it must be agreed by the other party to the contract, that is, the restaurant shall not charge any fees other than those stipulated in the delivery terms when providing delivery services. Therefore, even if the weather is bad that day, it is really hard for the delivery staff to deliver food. In this case, the extra allowance of the delivery staff should be borne by the restaurant and not by the customer. It should also be noted that when making delivery specifications, restaurants should follow the principle of fairness to determine the rights and obligations between restaurants and customers, and obviously unfair's contract terms will be deemed invalid.
● Legal basis
Article 39 of the Contract Law: Where a contract is concluded by standard terms, the party providing the standard terms shall follow the principle of fairness to determine the rights and obligations between the parties, and take reasonable measures to draw the attention of the other party to the terms exempting or limiting its liability, and explain the terms according to the requirements of the other party. Standard clauses are clauses drawn up by the parties in advance for reuse, and they are not negotiated with each other when concluding a contract.
article 41 of the contract law: a standard clause is invalid if it falls under the circumstances stipulated in articles 52 and 53 of this law, or if the party providing the standard clause exempts its liability, aggravates the other party's liability or excludes the other party's main rights.
the operator should compensate for the loss caused by the wrong customer
● Related cases
Last September, Mr. Li ordered a birthday cake in a cake shop for his mother's eightieth birthday, and asked the cake shop to deliver it to the restaurant where the whole family held a birthday party for her mother at noon on her birthday, leaving his name and telephone number. At 12 noon that day, the cake shop did not deliver the cake to the hotel as agreed. Later, it was learned that on the day when Mr. Li ordered the cake, another Ms. Wang also ordered a cake in the cake shop to celebrate her parents' wedding anniversary. The delivery place was the same as Mr. Li's. The delivery clerk of the cake shop did not check the information and gave the birthday cake ordered by Mr. Li to Ms. Wang by mistake. The cake shop expressed its willingness to make another cake and send it to the hotel, but it was already 13: 11, and Mr. Li's family dinner was coming to an end, and many family members had left. Mr. Li thought it was meaningless to send another cake. Mr. Li believes that due to the mistake of the delivery staff of the cake shop, he did not receive the cake for his mother's birthday in time, which caused irreparable regret to himself and his family. Therefore, he sued the cake shop in Haidian District Court and asked him to return the cake money and pay three times the cake money as spiritual consolation money. Later, under the auspices of Haidian District Court, Mr. Li reached a settlement with the cake shop, which paid Mr. Li 1.5 times the cake money as compensation in addition to returning the cake money.
● The judge reminds
Sui Qiuhong, a judge of the First People's Court of Haidian District, said that customers usually order delivery food by phone or directly to the restaurant, and the delivery clerk often confirms the customer's identity based on the customer's name, phone number and delivery address. When delivering the goods ordered by customers, the delivery staff has the obligation to confirm the identity of customers, and customers should also cooperate with the delivery staff to provide proof of identity confirmation, such as telephone number. If the customer fails to receive the goods in time and causes losses, the restaurant should pay compensation. The premise of compensation must be: first, when ordering goods, customers clearly require the delivery time of goods, and the restaurant confirms and agrees; Second, the customer did suffer actual losses because he didn't receive the goods.
In addition, with the rapid promotion of delivery service, catering enterprises should make more efforts to study how to avoid such disputes. For example, we can learn from the practice of the express delivery industry. After customers order goods by telephone, the restaurant will make the information left by customers, including name, telephone number, address, quantity, price and delivery time, into a confirmation form. After the goods are delivered, the customer will sign the confirmation form for confirmation, and both parties will keep one copy. The signing of this confirmation form can prevent the delivery staff from sending the wrong customer, and the customer can confirm whether the delivered goods meet their own requirements. At the same time, the customer's signature on the confirmation form not only shows that the restaurant has fulfilled its obligation to provide goods and delivery services, but also shows that Gu has paid the payment in full. In this way, it can reduce the occurrence of sending goods to the wrong customers, and at the same time, both parties have the basis for determining the responsibility in case of disputes.
● Legal basis
Article 117 of the Contract Law: If a party fails to perform its contractual obligations or fails to meet the contract obligations, it shall bear the liabilities for breach of contract such as continuing to perform, taking remedial measures or compensating for losses.