Delivery Man Claims Wrong Meal Not Returned Express Chain Sues Theft

Delivery guy says he took the wrong food and didn't return it. Express chain sues for theft.

https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/4970967

A delivery worker, Mr. Chan, was suspected to be delivering food.Cancelled for not paying attention to the mealThe company's main goal is to provide the best possible service to the public, and the company's goal is to provide the best possible service to the public, and the company's goal is to provide the best possible service to the public, and the company's goal is to provide the best possible service to the public, and the company's goal is to provide the best possible service to the public, and the company's goal is to provide the best possible service to the public, and the company's goal is to provide the best possible service to the public, and the company's goal is to provide the best possible service to the public.

It is understood that the Chen man in the 228 consecutive holidays when delivering meals suspected too many orders, did not pay attention to the meal was canceled, then walked to the fast food store to put delivery meals on the shelf to take away the set meal has been prepared, resulting in another delivery staff to the fast food store can not find the meal to the store supervisor to reflect the store, the store to investigate the monitor, and only then found that the other consumers of the meal was taken by the Chen man.

The store contacted through the relationship on the Chen man, told him to pick up the wrong package, and asked the Chen man to return the meal, but it is suspected that the consumer did not know that the consumer has canceled the order, the meal has been delivered, and the two sides so a verbal argument, the Chen man claimed that he did not intentionally pick up the wrong meal, but the store does not accept, and even suspected that the Chen man swallowed the meal, demanded a limited time to return it, otherwise, the police will be filed a charge of theft.

Chen deliveryman delivery, suspected of not paying attention to the meal was canceled, to the counter of the chain of fast food stores to take away about 500 yuan set meal, the industry so that the verbal altercation with the Chen man, a few days after the store to see the Chen man did not return the meal, yesterday filed a charge of theft, lawyer Hong Ming Xian pointed out that theft constitutes the elements of the crime must have criminal intent, but will not be punished for negligence.

The store contacted Mr. Chen and told him that he had picked up the wrong set of food and asked him to return the food, but it was suspected that he did not know that the consumer had canceled the order.Meal DeliveredThe two sides therefore started a verbal argument, Chen claimed that he did not intentionally take the wrong meal, but the store did not accept, and even suspected Chen of misappropriating the meal, demanded a time to return, otherwise, the police will file a charge of theft.

Store supervisor yesterday with the relevant evidence to the police, the police did both sides of the statement, the whole case according to the theft letter, and pointed out that due to the investigation is not open to the public can not be explained to the public.

For delivery platforms.“When a meal is canceled, the platform hides the order and customer information, so there is basically no such thing as ”not noticing that it has been canceled”.In the case of the deliveryman, it is safe to say that he was misappropriating the food. There is no address and naturally there is no ”It's been delivered.“This matter.

Unless the meal has been picked up and then canceled by the customer, there will be a situation where the meal has been taken away, and the wrong meal has been picked up by the other delivery person... This situation is very common... The platform will normally bear the loss, for example, uber eats will bear the cost of 100%, while panda will let the store to bear the cost of 40%, and the platform will pay the cost of 60%. In other words In other words, there is no reason for the store to ask the delivery person to compensate for the full amount of the meal.If the store requires the delivery person to return or pay for the full cost of the meal, then the store is committing fraud.

But the amazing point is that the store can actually contact the Chen men through the relationship, and get the Chen men's personal information and even file a lawsuit, which is actually a very difficult thing, because the lawsuit has to first lock the parties, the normal platform will not disclose the personal information of the deliveryman, at most the deliveryman's name and photo, but only the name of the photo of the words, the court will say that looking for information (ex ID card number) to wait for half a year! But if you only have a photo of your name, the court will say you have to wait 6 months for the information (ex ID number).

It's almost certain that the store didn't find out the delivery person's information through the platform, because if they report back to the platform, the most the platform will do is to send a warning letter or suspend the rights of the delivery person surnamed Chen.

In addition to the normal general delivery workers will not go to do this kind of theft, because run uber eats panda need good citizen card, for 500 yuan meal and unemployment is very irrational, the next five years of time on the good citizen card will have a note, was found to be the right to be suspended, the panda is the first time to pay, but the uber eats is the annual re-application of the good citizen card.

Normally, a shopkeeper would not file a lawsuit for $500... In today's society where the hourly wage is more than $197, it is not cost-effective to take three hours off from work to appear in court, and it is probably because the two parties were really arguing to the point of getting angry that it turned out like this.

Conclusion

According to the article, there is a high probability that the deliveryman is a thief, but it is not clear whether the store's ”relationship” with the deliveryman is legal. If it is illegal, the shopkeeper is liable under the Personal Data Act.