Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Food stolen from counter in a takeaway

123578

Comments

  • #122
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    TheChizler wrote: »
    To the first question, no. What about phone or internet sales? To the second, yes. He came back, and did not receive his goods as they had been given away already and they refused to replace them. The sale was not completed.

    Phone and internet sales.

    This is not the type of transaction at hand.


  • #123
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    Phone and internet sales.

    This is not the type of transaction at hand.

    Put it this way : if the goods had been a pair of wedding rings, with a value of 5 000, would the customer have walked away from the premises to take a phone call ?

    Meant to edit my post, not self quote :/


  • #124
    biko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,060 ✭✭✭✭biko


    It's laughable that this is hashed out between two parties and scarcely a mention of the scumbags that stole the food.

    Man up and either go after them or learn the lesson not to leave things unattended when there may be scumbags around.


  • #125
    armaghlad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,660 ✭✭✭armaghlad


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    Customer unavailable because off the premises, so the fact it's unattended is customer's prerogative.
    Fundamentally disagree. Shoddy customer service from the takeaway. The customer isn't blameless as his actions are part of the cause of the theft; but when you pay for something you should be given your change immediately after. Leaving the premises while waiting on food in a takeaway is not an unreasonable course of action.


  • #126
    ebbsy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,285 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    Next time don't answer the phone when you are being served. It's basic common manners.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    armaghlad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,660 ✭✭✭armaghlad


    ebbsy wrote: »
    Next time don't answer the phone when you are being served. It's basic common manners.
    What if your food is taking ages? And you've waited 15/20 mins and no sign of it?


  • #128
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    ebbsy wrote: »
    Next time don't answer the phone when you are being served. It's basic common manners.

    I couldn't count the amount of times a cashier in a takeaway answered the phone to take an order when I was giving my order at the counter ........ I was never offended it by it as it's a business transaction.

    A customer is not obliged to be "mannerly" ....... a customer in a takeaway is obliged to pay for his/her food, a takeaway is obliged to put that paid for food into the customer's hand.


  • #129
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,543 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Mountainsandh wrote: »
    Put it this way : if the goods had been a pair of wedding rings, with a value of 5 000, would the customer have walked away from the premises to take a phone call ?

    Meant to edit my post, not self quote :/
    I don't see why not. You hand over your money, the staff member goes away to get your rings out of the safe and get you change, you make a phone call, there's no way the staff member would just leave your rings on the counter for anyone to take. The only difference between this and the tajeaway is the value of the transaction.


  • #130
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,543 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    biko wrote: »
    It's laughable that this is hashed out between two parties and scarcely a mention of the scumbags that stole the food.

    Man up and either go after them or learn the lesson not to leave things unattended when there may be scumbags around.
    Would it not be up to the takeaway to get recourse from the person who took it? As far as I can see the customer and takeaway never completed their transaction, so the food wasn't the property of the customer yet (not so sure about the change, but it was last in possession of the cashier), therefore the food wasn't stolen from the customer, it was between the takeaway and the scumbag?


  • #131
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,878 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    stefan.kuntz wrote: »
    Why is he posting if he doesn't know exactly what happened?

    You're the one who claims he doesn't know, not the OP :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    SteM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,505 ✭✭✭SteM


    armaghlad wrote: »
    "The guy at the counter left the food and the change on the counter"

    That to me is unattended. If the money isn't in the till or the customer's hand, it is unattended. Likewise if the food isn't in the customer's hand, or behind the till, it is unattended. Pedantry maybe but it's simple common sense that would negate anything like this ever happening.

    If there's someone there and the people that took the food and the change spoke to someone behind the counter then it wasn't unattended. The counter that had the food on it was attended meaning it couldn't be unattended.


  • #133
    SteM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,505 ✭✭✭SteM


    esforum wrote: »
    what Chinese does this? What Chinese does NOT dump the food down and shout a number and then walk away?

    Different premises, different proceedures.

    Where did I say a Chinese did it? I was specifically responding to a poster that was talking about buying a TV. My local chipper looks at receipts before handing the bag over for what it's worth.


  • #134
    stefan.kuntz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 91 ✭✭stefan.kuntz


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    You're the one who claims he doesn't know, not the OP :confused:

    I'm basing it on what the OP has posted. OP claims not to be the customer. Story is full of holes.


  • #135
    armaghlad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,660 ✭✭✭armaghlad


    SteM wrote: »
    If there's someone there and the people that took the food and the change spoke to someone behind the counter then it wasn't unattended. The counter that had the food on it was attended meaning it couldn't be unattended.
    It is unattended. Unless they have eyes in the back of their head; having someone behind the counter does not altar that fact. Nor does the person who took the food speaking to them altar it either.

    If the thief had just lifted the money and food on the sly without saying anything, and without anyone seeing; would you still say that it was attended to? Because if there is the potential for that to happen then it isn't been attended to.


  • #136
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    biko wrote: »
    It's laughable that this is hashed out between two parties and scarcely a mention of the scumbags that stole the food.

    Man up and either go after them or learn the lesson not to leave things unattended when there may be scumbags around.

    Forget it, this has been mentioned a few times across this thread, but people are too busy shouting "THE CUSTOMER!" "THE TAKE WAY!" "THE CUSTOMER!" "THE TAKE AWAY!" to take note of this little detail. Just like any internet discussion its more important to SHOUT YOUR OPINION over everyone else.
    Legally speaking, you don't say "who is responsible". You will say " who can I make responsible", because in the end you just want money for your own misfortune and it doesn't matter a sh*t where it comes from. If you can sue your Granny, you do it. Now that is legal.
    Don't forget, honesty, decency, scruples and morals go out the window when it's time to go legal.


  • #137
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    It's just another instance of someone trying to shift responsibility onto someone else imo. I get the feeling the person getting the take away was young, naive and somewhat immature when it comes to such dealings.

    The opportunity for someone to steal the food would not have arisen had the customer been there to do what he/she's supposed to do : collect his/her food and change.

    It a tough tough world out there, and some people just need to grow up, take responsibility, and act accordingly.

    If a phone call being answered immediately is of paramount importance, then send someone else to get the food, get a home delivery, or simply wait until the phone call has passed before placing an order in a take away.

    That's what being an adult is about. Make choices, decide on your priorities, and not rely on others to accommodate you (of course it's ok to enjoy it when they do).

    You decide : stay and be sure to get your goods, or walk off the premises with the potential for some problems.

    I don't see any obligation on a retailer to "mind" a customer's goods and change when the customer walks off the premises.


  • #138
    Mountainsandh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,705 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Forget it, this has been mentioned a few times across this thread, but people are too busy shouting "THE CUSTOMER!" "THE TAKE WAY!" "THE CUSTOMER!" "THE TAKE AWAY!" to take note of this little detail. Just like any internet discussion its more important to SHOUT YOUR OPINION over everyone else.
    Legally speaking, you don't say "who is responsible". You will say " who can I make responsible", because in the end you just want money for your own misfortune and it doesn't matter a sh*t where it comes from. If you can sue your Granny, you do it. Now that is legal.
    Don't forget, honesty, decency, scruples and morals go out the window when it's time to go legal.

    I think you're right in one regard : the obvious aim here is to get compensation from the take-away for the customer's mistake.


  • #139
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Forget it, this has been mentioned a few times across this thread, but people are too busy shouting "THE CUSTOMER!" "THE TAKE WAY!" "THE CUSTOMER!" "THE TAKE AWAY!" to take note of this little detail. Just like any internet discussion its more important to SHOUT YOUR OPINION over everyone else.
    Legally speaking, you don't say "who is responsible". You will say " who can I make responsible", because in the end you just want money for your own misfortune and it doesn't matter a sh*t where it comes from. If you can sue your Granny, you do it. Now that is legal.
    Don't forget, honesty, decency, scruples and morals go out the window when it's time to go legal.

    you do realise this area is called legal discussions right? The entire purpose of threads here is to flesh out and discuss legal questions and theories.


  • #140
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    esforum wrote: »
    you do realise this area is called legal discussions right? The entire purpose of threads here is to flesh out and discuss legal questions and theories.

    I know. And I think legally, the scumbag who took the food is responsible.
    It is the same as shoplifting to my mind. Unless the legal brains here think no blame attaches to him. :D


  • #141
    Notavirus.exe
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 832 ✭✭✭Notavirus.exe


    stefan.kuntz wrote: »
    Are you the 'friend'?

    How does the OP or the friend know that this is the exact sequence of events? Did the 'friend' see the change and food being left on the counter?

    The food wasn't on the counter when he stood outside the door. It obviously was left on the counter after he left.

    ***There was nobody else in the place. It was only him and then the scumbags who entered soon later. The guy at the counter had no reason to leave the food and change on the counter. It should have been his responsibility to say "Sorry, the guy you're with needs to come in and say it's ok to take the food".***


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    SteM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,505 ✭✭✭SteM


    armaghlad wrote: »
    It is unattended. Unless they have eyes in the back of their head; having someone behind the counter does not altar that fact. Nor does the person who took the food speaking to them altar it either.

    If the thief had just lifted the money and food on the sly without saying anything, and without anyone seeing; would you still say that it was attended to? Because if there is the potential for that to happen then it isn't been attended to.

    Again, if there was someone there - and we know from the OP that there was - then it was not unattended. Doesn't matter how often you say it was unattended. It was badly attended but if there was someone there then it could not be unattended.


  • #143
    degsie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,771 ✭✭✭degsie


    SteM wrote: »
    It wasn't unattended. The OP said

    The scumbags told the one at the counter that they were with my friend and took the food and change and left.

    So there was someone there. It wasn't unattended.


    OP's friend must look like a scumbag in order for the merchant to believe the other scumbag. Scumbags have a particular 'look', right?


  • #144
    stefan.kuntz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 91 ✭✭stefan.kuntz


    Notavirus.exe wrote: »
    The food wasn't on the counter when he stood outside the door. It obviously was left on the counter after he left.

    ***There was nobody else in the place. It was only him and then the scumbags who entered soon later. The guy at the counter had no reason to leave the food and change on the counter. It should have been his responsibility to say "Sorry, the guy you're with needs to come in and say it's ok to take the food".***

    Did your friend see the guy at the counter leave the change and food on the counter?

    Did your friend have visibility of the counter at all times?


  • #145
    Notavirus.exe
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 832 ✭✭✭Notavirus.exe


    stefan.kuntz wrote: »
    Did your friend see the guy at the counter leave the change and food on the counter?

    Did your friend have visibility of the counter at all times?

    No.

    Therefore, no again.


  • #146
    stefan.kuntz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 91 ✭✭stefan.kuntz


    Notavirus.exe wrote: »
    No.

    Therefore, no again.

    Thanks for confirming that most of what you have posted is supposition rather than fact.


  • #147
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    stefan.kuntz wrote: »
    Did your friend see the guy at the counter leave the change and food on the counter?

    Did your friend have visibility of the counter at all times?
    Notavirus.exe wrote: »
    No.

    Therefore, no again.
    stefan.kuntz wrote: »
    Thanks for confirming that most of what you have posted is supposition rather than fact.

    Huh? :confused:

    His friend knows exactly what happened to his food and change because he was told exactly what happened by the one person who had the food and change, the same person who handed the food and change over to the scumbags, ie. the cashier.

    I know you thought you made a clever point there ......... but you didn't.


  • #148
    stefan.kuntz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 91 ✭✭stefan.kuntz


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    Huh? :confused:

    His friend knows exactly what happened to his food and change because he was told exactly what happened by the one person who had the food and change, the same person who handed the food and change over to the scumbags, ie. the cashier.

    I know you thought you made a clever point there ......... but you didn't.

    No, he has shown that he doesn't know what happened because he didn't see it. I didn't think that would be difficult to grasp, but I guess I didn't account for you in that, Poirot.


  • #149
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    stefan.kuntz wrote: »
    No, he has shown that he doesn't know what happened because he didn't see it. I didn't think that would be difficult to grasp, but I guess I didn't account for you in that, Poirot.

    It took you 10 pages and 140+ posts to realise that!?!!?!! :rolleyes:


  • #150
    Notavirus.exe
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 832 ✭✭✭Notavirus.exe


    stefan.kuntz wrote: »
    No, he has shown that he doesn't know what happened because he didn't see it. I didn't think that would be difficult to grasp, but I guess I didn't account for you in that, Poirot.

    What do you not understand? He saw the scumbags walking in and coming out with food, he went in soon after looking for his food and he was told by the counter guy that those guys took it.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    stefan.kuntz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 91 ✭✭stefan.kuntz


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    It took you 10 pages and 140+ posts to realise that!?!!?!! :rolleyes:

    What are you wittering on about now?


Advertisement