Comment on US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms
PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 1 day agoThen 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.
ZMonster@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The restaurant isn’t suing them, ding dong. The guy who consented to an arbitration agreement is. Jesus fuck, it is okay to be wrong. I know it sucks. It sucks even more to imagine that Disney might be doing something remotely respectable and have to admit that. But it’s okay. I’m wrong all the time. I face it, accept it, learn from it, and move on.
When you are ready to move on, go for it.
PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
So they’re doing to arbitrate a case on behalf of the store? Makes no sense to think it applies to their arbitration agreement.