Comment on US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms
PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 1 day agoShow me the lease agreement that says I’m wrong. I guarantee it’s much different than a standard commercial lease with more stringent requirements. If Disney is making specific requirements then they have a duty to enforce them.
ZMonster@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I appreciate your concerns, but truly: I owe you nothing. It takes very little integrity to make an uninformed allegation and then sit back with a smug look and a mug full of selfrighteousness decrying “prove me wrong”.
Why don’t you prove Legal Eagle wrong? It would without a doubt be more fruitful because I’m not entertaining it.
PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Then why did they attempt to invoke the terms of an unrelated service rather than having the case dismissed outright? Makes no sense.
ZMonster@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Obviously I can’t possibly speak as to why they chose to do what they did. But I would assume that making a motion to dismiss due to the fact that arbitration has already been agreed to (seemingly unrelated from your perspective but from a legal perspective is really the only substantive aspect, so wildly related) is far less scandalous than making a motion to dismiss with no recourse for the plaintiff at all and would be far more damaging to their reputation.
And that DOES make sense.
PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Right, but if they’re not affiliated with the restaurant, then the restaurant doesn’t fall under their tos, because they don’t own it.