It seems the lower the bar of entry in terms of capital, the shadier it is. Ie Uber at least requires you to have a car, which involves some kind of credit check which is embodied in the car procurement before it even hit Uber. Dog walking? Not so much.
Come on down to Miami, where it’s not unusual for the actual uber driver to be different than uber drivers profile.
You can’t really get more shady than exploiting undocumented immigrants who can’t get a DL, and having them illegally without a DL by driving under someone else’s uber account for a fraction.
Seeing a mismatch? Yeah, never again.
Taxi drivers will therefore try to maximise their investment, so they have people driving their car 24/7, on shifts.
There would be nothing wrong with having two uber drivers with two legitimate uber accounts splitting the car...not allowing an unlicensed person driver for uber under someone else’s account.
I agree with your general point, but the vast majority of Uber drivers I've seen are worryingly dangerous drivers (even worse than most taxis). I would not be surprised if many are driving all day, and are exhausted while being in charge of another person's life.
They promised to pay for everything, and did not disclose additional terms at that time.
The way I learned it is: Any statement of intent, no matter in which form, is creating a contract that you are bound to abide.
You sound like you would argue that it obviously was not a contract but a joke because 'why would a company pay something without getting anything in return'. But that would not hold. Companies spend a lot on customer relationship management. So the customer here could safely assume that the companies 'return' was a happier - in this case: less angry - customer.
http://theexaminer.com/features/commentary/promise-make-gift...
https://dolanlawfirm.com/2017/01/oral-promise/
A happier customer is not valid consideration for a contract. That would turn every pending gift into a contract and that's not how the law works.
Lesson is to never use a service in which the compensation part is somehow conditioned.
I don't eveen think that agreering to 'not seek further compensation' is an acceptablee condition for getting compensation.
That is a problem in society today, and why many of these companies get away with massive amounts of bad behavior. We has a society view it acceptable for these corporations to pay off their victims with hush money, instead of actually holding them accountable for their bad actions
Here Wag is not stepping up, doing their right thing, or making the victim whole. They are (or were attempting to) pay off their victim to silence them. That should not be viewed by anyone as ethically right
Accidents happen in all things, so I think it should boil down mostly to whatever the reality is there.
... though Wag has shown some bad form obviously.
> If we wanted to be compensated we had to agree not to tell anyone what happened, we could not leave any negative reviews, we could not make posts on social media, we could not hold Wag or the walker responsible, and only then would Wag reimburse us for Winnie’s cremation. When we responded that we would not sign the agreement, we were told that the agreement would remain available in case we changed our minds. The next day, we received an email stating that the agreement was now “null and void.”
What assholes. (Wag) All these gig economy apps are super shady.