Comment by Dylan16807
6 years ago
> While the restaurant preparing "partial" pizzas to ship to coordinated orders is obviously fraud
How so? They're making the pizzas the way the customer wants them. The 'objective' tastiness is none of the delivery middleman's business. And there's nothing wrong with offering a bad pizza for $24, as long as the customer knows what they're getting.
Well, if the restaurant reimburses the customer after, it probably would become a problem.
Way around this: private owner places his own orders as customer, pockets profits as owner. That might be legitimate - but remember: if you take legal advice from the Internet, you get what you paid for.
Why does it matter if the owner is reimbursing their non-owning customers? Restaurants do that all the time.
(IANAL) My gut says coordination would be be evidence of both (a) premeditated intent & (b) knowledge that actions constituted fraud.
One could place a personal order (or 100) innocently.
One looks substantially less innocent when coordinating with a third party to place orders and transfer money around.
While that speaks to the severity of the crime (if one were proven), as you noted, it doesn't in any way impact whether that behavior is a crime at all.
4 replies →
This depends on whether you think the pizza restaurant's customer is doordash.
You could make a good argument that this was the case. The restaurant sells to doordash, who paid for a pizza with toppings.
Doordash is buying it, but I think it makes more sense as "a pizza for Bob" than just "a pizza". I think it would be strange to ignore everything Bob says if he calls in asking for the pepperoni to be on one side.
Though none of this matters if there's a 'special instructions' box. Have a code word for bread pizza.