|
toplitzin posted:And throwing only raw dough in the box to maximize the ROI. This might cross a line? False advertising or something, since you aren’t actually delivering what your menu promises.
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 11:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
smackfu posted:This might cross a line? False advertising or something, since you aren’t actually delivering what your menu promises. He's ordering it to himself. Owner orders pizza through doordash's unrequested/unwanted site. DD charges him/the customer $16 for a pizza on his menu that actually lists for $24. Dr driver comes, picks up pizza, and uses a dd credit card and pays $24 making up the list price difference. Driver gets box of dough, drives around back, delivers order to owner. owner says thanks for my pizza, and pockets the $8 dd paid the store for his $16 pie. Basically dude found that DD made and runs an online ordering/delivery he doesn't offer. Dd charges customers less for his pizzas than he does, but dd as the middleman pays the difference (loss leader type b.s.) between their price and the real price.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 12:12
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:He's ordering it to himself. Fun fact, a lot of civilized countries have something called "anti-trust" or "anti-monopoly" (not the game) laws that ban what you are describing, so called "illegal price dumping". This is because this practice pushes out competitors and establishes monopolies, which we don't want. A good way to do something about that is to establish, for instance, some sort of Federal Trade Commission under some sort of justice department to enforce a law like that. It's a great idea, don't know why nobody does it. Would be sweet to have.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 13:52
|
|
|
Ah, well, I hadn’t seen the news story before responding so didn’t know he was arbitraging.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 14:26
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Fun fact, a lot of civilized countries have something called "anti-trust" or "anti-monopoly" (not the game) laws that ban what you are describing, so called "illegal price dumping". This is because this practice pushes out competitors and establishes monopolies, which we don't want. Do the laws against this require intent? The reason they have their prices set wrong is gross incompetence. They could find the current menu with the correct price, but just didn't.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:The combination of intellectual curiosity and boundless stupidity is rare, thus not a lot of people care about the theories of law. How dare you so accurately make fun of me
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 14:52
|
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:Someone is harassing me through Amazon purchases. Specifically, POD books with extremely unflattering titles. On the 10th, I had a blowout with an rear end in a top hat known for social media hysterics. He made threats of violence against me but backed off when I threatened to report him to his work. 3 days later, the book was printed and shipped to my house, arriving the 18th. One book or multiple books? What was the title of the book? Were you able to screenshot/download/record the threat?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
Did we ever get a screen shot of the Spoonman Fridge Manifesto?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 15:41
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Do you have (artisanal) spoons in your house?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 15:45
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:Do the laws against this require intent? The reason they have their prices set wrong is gross incompetence. They could find the current menu with the correct price, but just didn't. Might. Ours needs intent or gross negligence (though it's not clear in practice if it really actually does and how that is proven), but the generalized corporate criminal statute requires none at all.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 15:53
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:Do the laws against this require intent? The reason they have their prices set wrong is gross incompetence. They could find the current menu with the correct price, but just didn't. What if the reason the price is set low to entice/engage customers (like the $1.5 hotdog combo at Costco) to use their service. (this is VC funded silicon valley stupidity after all) They clearly know their listed price is wrong, and paying the actual retail price when their driver gets the order. Is the pizza shop owner doing something illegal by taking advantage of this difference?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Did we ever get a screen shot of the Spoonman Fridge Manifesto? Oh no I forgot about that, I'll edit it and post it up once I've finished throwing out his poo poo in another 10 days or so. by edit I mean I'll redact his name pseudanonymous fucked around with this message at 17:16 on May 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 16:51
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:One book or multiple books? What was the title of the book? Were you able to screenshot/download/record the threat? one book to multiple people, "you're an rear end in a top hat," yes
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:one book to multiple people, "you're an rear end in a top hat," yes look, I know I'm abrasive but I'm just trying to help.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:one book to multiple people, "you're an rear end in a top hat," yes What was the threat?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
Real talk: addresses are public information, Amazon has whatever internal policies they have, and if the Police department is working on it there isn't much else you can do. If the police don't already have the threat of violence, then you should provide that to them. The police have discretion over whether to interact with this person or charge them with a crime. You can ask the police if you qualify for a restraining order but I'm dubious as they didn't offer it already.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
joat mon posted:What was the threat? "I know where you live." I understand addresses are generally considered public information but I have taken steps to obscure myself after a doxxing a few years back. The police don't yet have the threat, I'm waiting to hear back from the USPIS, who doesn't yet know that this has happened twice. I've reached out to the first victim to try and get a statement or collaborate on a response before I update the USPIS. edit- I've confirmed his job has a zero tolerance policy for abusive behavior, so if nothing else pans out he's losing his job at the very least.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 17:06
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:Is the pizza shop owner doing something illegal by taking advantage of this difference? Just to confirm the shop owner did not enter into any agreement with doordash
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 17:06
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Just to confirm the shop owner did not enter into any agreement with doordash Was there gold fringe on the order form?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
I bet the credit card had the name in all caps
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
Pizza delivery is invalid if any slice of an 8 slice pizza contains less than 10% of the pie.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:"I know where you live." I understand addresses are generally considered public information but I have taken steps to obscure myself after a doxxing a few years back. not sure why you think this is a post office issue. the post office doesn't care if he's mailing you poo poo you don't want.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Just to confirm the shop owner did not enter into any agreement with doordash To my understanding, that is correct.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
Yo, gently caress the haters in this thread. JP Court is fun as hell. Sue the spoonman and report back.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 19:34
|
|
blarzgh posted:look, I know I'm abrasive but I'm just trying to help. truth is an absolute defense
|
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:To my understanding, that is correct. Yeah, this is DoorDash just inserting itself between the pizza shop and its customers.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Hypothetical, based on the below article (you don't have to read it, I'll summarize; the dude who wrote it is a tool): I cannot think of a claim that fits, but I would also tell the shop owner there's a reasonable chance doordash files a mostly meritless lawsuit anyway to punish you as an example.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
Chicken Doodle posted:On a totally related topic, do any of the lawyer goons have examples of times they advised clients to do one thing and that client said "thanks for the advice I'm going to completely ignore it and make my life more complicated than it could be"? At least once a day, but that's family law for you. I have a whole spiel I give when I take a client on and half the time I still get the in hearing surprise that they have ignored my advice and torpoedoed their case. Then I get the email from a throwaway address saying I know nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I cannot think of a claim that fits, but I would also tell the shop owner there's a reasonable chance doordash files a mostly meritless lawsuit anyway to punish you as an example. It feels like there's a sales tax element that would take this into fraud territory, and then a judge would make a feel-good distinction between 'you delivered 100 pizzas to a friend, this is legitimately taking advantage of a poor offer' and 'you didn't actually supply anything, these were phantom transactions to defraud x'. e: I mean if the question is 'what's the worst that can happen?' then the worst that can happen is that a law enforcement official notices that you are doing something that looks like the final stage of a not very complex money laundering scheme Alchenar fucked around with this message at 22:07 on May 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
Why effort fraud? Circulate the doordash discount so people order that thing legitimately, milk doordash for $8 per order until they stop doing it, then dump them, imo
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
Javid posted:Why effort fraud? Circulate the doordash discount so people order that thing legitimately, milk doordash for $8 per order until they stop doing it, then dump them, imo If you read the article, because doordash will deliver cold pizzas to those people cause they don’t have pizza bags.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
if I own a pizza restaurant, it's not super good for me if my customers get the idea that my regular, not-on-sale price is $16, and then suddenly that goes away and now they have to pay $24 for the same pizza. Maybe they will think I jacked up the prices or whatever. At the very least, I'd assume I am the one who gets to decide and moderate my discounting tactics, rather than some self-appointed delivery service. This is the same principle behind those wholesalers who tell retailers they're not allowed to advertise a super-low price on a TV, you have to click through to the shopping cart before you can see it. Right? It's not great to let a reseller undercut your prices so badly that your customers think you're ripping them off whenever you try to charge them your actual retail price. Anyway yeah I'm one of those people who just is genuinely interested in the law. The reason I don't go to law school is that I also have other genuine intellectual interests, and I can't simultaneously go to law school, woodworking school, gardening school, hiking school, photography school, and shitposting on the internet school, all at once. Also I'm 45 and already have a career. It's almost as though there's room between "doesn't give a poo poo about this subject" and "devotes lifelong career to this subject."
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It's almost as though there's room between "doesn't give a poo poo about this subject" and "devotes lifelong career to this subject." Stop being reasonable. It won't work here.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If you read the article, because doordash will deliver cold pizzas to those people cause they don’t have pizza bags. Also DoorDash is trying to insert themselves as the middleman between him and his customers (and other restaurants too), in part by putting spoofed phone numbers on the google that redirect to Door Dash's ordering system.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2020 05:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:not sure why you think this is a post office issue. the post office doesn't care if he's mailing you poo poo you don't want. It's not harassment to harass someone through the mail system?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2020 06:29
|
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:It's not harassment to harass someone through the mail system?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2020 06:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:IANAL so I can't tell you exactly when behavior moves from simply annoying to actually felonious under federal laws against stalking, but realistically you're trying to convince a federal law enforcement agent (which is what Postal Inspectors are) to spend their time building a criminal case over someone mailing you a book titled "you are an rear end in a top hat." Unless there is some more extensive pattern of threats or conduct, it might not be their top priority. there are, he's made direct threats against me and others, and he's repeated this process of mailing harassing books before. this is a pattern of behavior.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2020 07:04
|
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:there are, he's made direct threats against me and others, and he's repeated this process of mailing harassing books before. this is a pattern of behavior. "I know where you live" is not a direct threat.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2020 12:17
|
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:It's not harassment to harass someone through the mail system? you claimed it was mail fraud first if you are now filing charges about harassment instead, "this guy sent me a single book about how im an rear end in a top hat" strikes me as the sort of complaint the post office is going to put on their wall as one of the funniest things they've seen in weeks rather than "why yes, that does sound like harassment, put a top inspector on the case" PHIZ KALIFA posted:there are, he's made direct threats against me and others, and he's repeated this process of mailing harassing books before. this is a pattern of behavior. then it sounds like a job for the regular police who have jurisdiction over all of the threats evilweasel fucked around with this message at 13:17 on May 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2020 13:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
Mail fraud requires, like many federal fraud crimes, that the fraudster is targeting some sort of property such as money, tangible goods, or real estate. This is why Chris Christee's cronies got away with shutting down the GW bridge a while back. Harassment, stalking, threats, etc. all are going to typically fall under local jurisdiction. There are federal stalking statutes and such that might protect someone in your circumstances, but the avenue of approach there is still going to start with local police. If someone is stalking/harassing you, call your local non-emergency police line and ask what to do. This type of poo poo is routine for them. They may even have the procedures posted online because this is a common enough problem. Someone mailing you a book to harass you is not mail fraud, though, because they're not trying to take anything from you.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2020 13:50
|
|
