Pizza Delivery

[KendallJ]

You do see the circularity of this right. I don't care how you define the "implied agreement". Do it in any way such that Baseball Genius is still dissatisfied with the current general practice, and you immediately defeat your case for an implied agreement because the only thing that is certain IS the current general practice.

I edited my post while you were posting a reply. I think this answers it. If it a common enough occurence that people deny the implicit agreement, then there is none.

That is why I sometimes check the legal definitons because they will sometimes give you clues as to how think about proper criteria to classify something. The "certainty" criteria actually checks those would-be claimants who want to turn everything into custom as you are doing here. The more you claim that delivery boys are being stiffed, and can't make a living in general, the more you undermine your basis for claiming contract out of custom because you are proving the custom is not certain. That relegates violations of contracts implied by custom to the few and egregious, not the common and petty (as yours is).

Edited March 23, 2007 by KendallJ

[SkyTrooper]

After discussing this for so long, I am prepared to advise exactly what baseball genius should do. I'm still not sure what to advise the objectivists that are opposed to this particular implied agreement what they should do, except I know that if I had a problem with the agreement I would make it clear to the company I was ordering from.

The following scenario illustrates my advised course of action for BaseballGenius.

After some searching, Driver arrives at Customer's house. He gives Customer the pizza, the Customer signs the credit card slip and draws a line through the 'tip' section.

DRIVER: “I’m sorry sir, were your expectations not met today?”

CUSTOMER: “What? No, your service was excellent!”

DRIVER: “Oh, well people usually tip if we provide good service. Its how we make our money, you see we drive our own cars and pay for our own gas.”

CUSTOMER: “I see… I don’t actually ever tip, I think of it as an outdated byzantine custom.”

DRIVER: “Well ok then, have a good day sir.”

The driver returns to the store.

DRIVER: “Excuse me Sir, the man at 3351 Oak says that he will never tip a delivery driver.”

OWNER: “Does he?”

DRIVER: “Yes Sir.

OWNER: “Are you sure you just didn’t meet his expectations?”

DRIVER: “I’m certain Sir, he told me that he would never tip a driver under any circumstances.”

OWNER: “Interesting.”

DRIVER: “I would like to not be assigned deliveries to that address anymore, and to have a comment added to his account so that drivers know that they will not be tipped if they go there.”

OWNER: “You are employed to deliver to anyone I tell you to, regardless of whether they tip or not.”

DRIVER: “With all due respect Sir, but because of the depreciation on my car and the cost of gas, if I am not paid tips when I deliver pizzas I do not even break even based on what you are paying me.”

OWNER: “You can deliver pizzas to that address, or you can quit.”

DRIVER: “Than I will quit Sir. If you can hire an employee to deliver pizzas at a loss to himself you are free to do so. Personally, I would not want foolish employees working for me.”

OWNER: “You make a good point. If the customer has said he will never tip, than I will charge that customer an additional delivery fee that is 15% of the bill and give that fee to you. However, if he offers to tip you than you must refuse to accept the money.”

DRIVER: “I think that is fair, Sir.”

[SkyTrooper]

The "certainty" criteria actually checks those would-be claimants who want to turn everything into custom as you are doing here. The more you claim that delivery boys are being stiffed, and can't make a living in general, the more you undermine your basis for claiming contract out of custom because you are proving the custom is not certain. That relegates violations of contracts implied by custom to the few and egregious, not the common and petty (as yours is).

Does one example of someone being uncertain about the implied agreement mean that there is no such agreement? That seems to be what you are suggesting. Of Americans that do not believe they have agreed to tip a driver that delivers a pizza in a timely and courteous fashion, I would guess they are probably less than 1% of the population.

[KendallJ]

Does one example of someone being uncertain about the implied agreement mean that there is no such agreement? That seems to be what you are suggesting. Of Americans that do not believe they have agreed to tip a driver that delivers a pizza in a timely and courteous fashion, I would guess they are probably less than 1% of the population.

Excellent. Then why are we getting all worked up about this issue in the first place? If one percent of the population fails to pay 15% on their tips and everyone else is doing so, then a delivery person is netting out with an average 14.85% in tips. Hardly a case to be made that his is unable to survive due to that 0.15% of his income being left out.

You see my point. If it is a general issue, then it can be source for complaint, but not for implied contract. If it is not a general issue then it might be a source for implied contract, but it really isn't a compaint any more.

You can define it as a source of implied contract, but in order to that you have to take away Baseball Genius general complaint. I don't care which you do. Either way, it becomes irrelevant.

[RationalBiker]

I hope that helps. The rest of your post is legal discussion about Cab companies so I hope you understand why I am dismissing it.

Dismissing it would be a mistake on your part. The point of it is not to delineate the legal requirements so much as to point to objective facts that a customer can KNOW what he can expect from a cab service (in the US) without relying on an implied agreement with the cab driver. So no, I do not understand why you are dismissing it and I think you miss the point in doing so. In other words, the cabbie situation is a poor example of an implied agreement because the customer can know factually that the cabbie is supposed to operate his business a particular way.

I defined "custom" and "implied agreement established by custom" a while back, but these alone may be insufficient.

Yes, these are insufficient as "criteria" as customs can be quite irrational. Despite the custom of the majority of the people in the US, I don't say "grace" before I eat.

The answer to "who deserves tips and who doesn't?" will follow from the Identity of (1). All I know for certain is that pizza delivery guys are among them.

A non-answer since no criteria has been established.

This is actually not an Objectivist question, but a Pragmatist question.

Hmm, this is the quintessential Objectivist question. It is the question that an objectivist should consider in everything he does regardless of whether or not he knows for certain what the outcome will be. He considers this based upon available knowledge at the time.

In the interest of fair play, I have to admit to an error. I attributed a quote to you that was actually from BaseballGenius. My apologies to both for the confusion. It was actually BaseballGenius how agreed to the rational argument I presented earlier.

On a different note I was amused yesterday when I saw a delivery driver deliver chinese food to a business....in a big SUV.

Of Americans that do not believe they have agreed to tip a driver that delivers a pizza in a timely and courteous fashion, I would guess they are probably less than 1% of the population.

How accurate is your guess?

[SkyTrooper]

Excellent. Then why are we getting all worked up about this issue in the first place? If one percent of the population fails to pay 15% on their tips and everyone else is doing so, then a delivery person is netting out with an average 14.85% in tips. Hardly a case to be made that his is unable to survive due to that 0.15% of his income being left out.

I'm actually confused now. I thought we were investigating the nature of the agreement that involves the Driver, the Owner, and the Customer. I hadn't considered the rest of the population except as it established the original implied agreement (which is in existence before the pizza place is built). In physics terms, I was thinking of other people as outside the system. Are they relevant?

You see my point. If it is a general issue, then it can be source for complaint, but not for implied contract. If it is not a general issue then it might be a source for implied contract, but it really isn't a compaint any more.

You can define it as a source of implied contract, but in order to that you have to take away Baseball Genius general complaint. I don't care which you do. Either way, it becomes irrelevant.

What positions are we actually holding? I have been saying that BaseballGenius cannot 'take' the tip (because it is unethical), and that if you are a customer and not planning on tipping you need to clarify that with the store (or you are acting unethically).

I am also holding that the only things you "should" do are things that are ethical, by definition. Ethical meaning acting in your own rational self-interest. When people have said that you "should" tip the driver, but that ethics does not dictate that you "should", I have found that a baffling position to hold.

[FeatherFall]

In fact, I did quote the assumption. I said...

Hmm... My bad.

[SkyTrooper]

I apologize I'm having some difficulty keeping track with the several different discussions I seem to be having.

3) How is it in one's rational self-interest to tip? Explain how tipping furthers one's long term rational self-interests in life.

My answer to "How is it in one's rational self-interest to tip?":

What I noted first, and what led me into this train wreck of a discussion is that if you don't tip when you have a pizza delivered in the US the pizza driver is probably not making a profit: breaking even at best. This violates the "trader principle" of trading value for value, which violates the virtue of Honesty.

My answer to "Explain how tipping furthers one's long term rational self-interests in life?"

This is actually not an Objectivist question, but a Pragmatist question. Its like forcing someone to prove what the effects of Marxism will be before seeing it in action. The exact effects cannot be known.

Some brainstorming: (just brainstorming, not arguments!)

I can note a time (when I was a pizza hut shift manager in high school) when I had a driver written up, who was ultimately fired, for filling in huge numbers in the blank "tip" line mentioned in the very first post.. and I'm certain a great many would not be caught doing so. Clearly a large charge on your credit card that you don't notice will not be in your rational self-interest. I'm also sure it can impact your reputation somehow since although you could probably break a written contract and not ultimately be sued, you will still be referred to as dishonest or in this case a "stiffer."

Ultimately, since we are talking about a sum of about two dollars, this is like the prudent predator question "how is it against your rational self-interest to steal someone's Cheetos?"

This is the quintessential Objectivist question. It is the question that an objectivist should consider in everything he does regardless of whether or not he knows for certain what the outcome will be. He considers this based upon available knowledge at the time.

The question "show me the exact consequences of not tipping" is a Pragmatist's question, not an Objectivist's.

Edited March 23, 2007 by badkarma556

[SkyTrooper]

Yes, these are insufficient as "criteria" as customs can be quite irrational. Despite the custom of the majority of the people in the US, I don't say "grace" before I eat.

Let me bring you up to speed:

A custom is a practice followed by people of a particular group or region. Obviously you cannot be morally required to do something just because everyone else does it. This line of thinking would probably lead you to something ridiculous like the anti-concept of a Kantian "duty."

An implied agreement established by custom is an agreement that has been transacted in a particular group or region so many times that most of the agreement is mutually understood, but not stated. This is actually rather convenient, because so many people have used this agreement that you don't have to negotiate every detail when you buy something. When you buy a car you don't have to ask "are the tires included?" When you mail a letter you don't have to ask "how long will it take to get there?" When you sit down at a restaurant you don't have to ask your server "am I expected to tip you if your service doesn't suck?" (at least, not until now)

And possible criteria for an "implied agreement established by custom."

It is interesting to note that in the legal definition of an implied contract, the claim of implicaiton by custom must prove that the custom is:

a. notorious - I assume this means well known

b. certain - I assume this means can be expected to always occur

c. legal - you can't claim illegal acts of custom

d. reasonable

A common claim against an "implied agreement established by custom" is that it is not entered into by volition. I think this claim is untrue because people are aware of the custom, and are aware of what entering into it implies.

[KendallJ]

I'm actually confused now. I thought we were investigating the nature of the agreement that involves the Driver, the Owner, and the Customer. I hadn't considered the rest of the population except as it established the original implied agreement (which is in existence before the pizza place is built). In physics terms, I was thinking of other people as outside the system. Are they relevant?

If your justification of such an analysis is "implied contract by custom". Then the rest of the system goes to certainty of the custom.

What positions are we actually holding? I have been saying that BaseballGenius cannot 'take' the tip (because it is unethical), and that if you are a customer and not planning on tipping you need to clarify that with the store (or you are acting unethically).

I am also holding that the only things you "should" do are things that are ethical, by definition. Ethical meaning acting in your own rational self-interest. When people have said that you "should" tip the driver, but that ethics does not dictate that you "should", I have found that a baffling position to hold.

So you are no longer claiming agreement implied by custom as you basis for obligation? Great. My work here is done. That's where I came in. Exit stage left.

[SkyTrooper]

If your justification of such an analysis is "implied contract by custom". Then the rest of the system goes to certainty of the custom.

So you are no longer claiming agreement implied by custom as you basis for obligation? Great. My work here is done. That's where I came in. Exit stage left.

Oh man. Yes "implied contract by custom" is a far better way to put it. I thought I was living on a different planet with objectivists decrying me as an apostate.

[BaseballGenius]

From your post #113:

Should I take it that we are no longer in agreement then?

Did you mean to say "disagreement"? Because we are in agreement on this topic now.

[RationalBiker]

Badkarma556,

I'm still waiting for objective criteria, not reiterations of your previous criteria which I do not consider to be objective. I have no intention to continue going round and round on something yet established.

This violates the "trader principle" of trading value for value, which violates the virtue of Honesty.

No, it does not. The trader principle does not require me to ensure that the other party gets what he believes to be an appropriate value in trade. My responsibility is to ensure that I get the value I seek in the trade and the other party either agrees to the trade or not based on the value he seeks. Since I'm not coercing the driver or the company to provide me with anything I have not already paid for, I'm not violating the trader principle. I can't help but think that you are still somewhat confused on the nature of "voluntary" (as in a gratuity), and a "fee" (as in required payment for the service or good). I have paid for the "value" I'm recieving, and as has been pointed out, if the driver is not recieving the compensation he think he deserves for his job, he needs to take that up with his boss. I have entered no implied agreement with the driver. Because it is "known" (as you rely on with your custom argument) that some people do not tip, the driver must consider this in his own interest of profitability for the work he does.

And interestingly enough, this is exactly why I brought up the chinese food delivered in the SUV. The "tippie" has assumed the additional expenses of operating a costly vehicle. By your argument, I would be obliged to tip him more to honor the "trader principle". Likewise, if a delivery person confined himself to such a small geographical area that he could deliver the food on a bicycle, he would incur far less expense and deserve far less of a tip (according to your balance sheet argument).

The question "show me the exact consequences of not tipping" is a Pragmatist's question, not an Objectivist's.

Since I didn't ask that question this quote and response are non-sequitur. I asked the question that an Objectivist would consider.

I'm going to retire from this thread until I see an argument that I think needs refutation. Until then I maintain the tipping is not morally obligatory per se. You however are free to follow whatever customs you feel obliged to follow.

Did you mean to say "disagreement"? Because we are in agreement on this topic now.

I posted an apology for misquoting you here.

It's toward the bottom.

Edited March 23, 2007 by RationalBiker

[SkyTrooper]

I'm still waiting for objective criteria, not reiterations of your previous criteria which I do not consider to be objective. I have no intention to continue going round and round on something yet established.

Objective criteria for what? I'm not sure what I am missing that you want me to address.

This is a summary of my current argument:

When the customer decides to order a pizza the parties involved are the Customer, the Driver, and the Owner.

1) A contract defines the conditions under which two parties are willing to trade value

2) From the nature of (1), there is such an entity as an "implied contract" (a contract which is understood by both parties but not stated)

3) A custom is a practice followed by people of a particular group or region.

4) From the nature of (2) and (3), an "implied contract by custom" can be established which is a contract that has been used in a particular group or region so many times that the contract is mutually understood, but not stated

5) Possible objective criteria for a contract to qualify as "implied" are that it must be notorious (well known), certain (will always occur), legal (not involving an illegal act), and reasonable

6) "Pizza Delivery" is the act of having Pizza delivered from elsewhere to the door of the Customer

7) From (4) and (6), "Pizza Delivery" has occurred so many times in the US that it has become a partially stated agreement and partially an "implied contract by custom" and meets the criteria of (5).

8) The form of (7) varies in the US, but generally the stated portion involves the payment for the pizza while the "implied contract by custom" involves the payment for the delivery, timeliness of the order, and the behavior of the driver. Under the "implied contract by custom" the Customer is given the privilege of determining if his expectations for the last three criteria have been met.

9) From (1) and (8): if the Driver fails to fulfill (8) he does not deserve his portion of the payment. If the customer does not pay the Driver's portion of the payment the driver cannot assume that he fulfilled the terms of (8) and take that portion of the payment by deception or force. If the customer dislikes the terms of (8) he should renegotiate the contract prior to entering into it.

Edited March 23, 2007 by badkarma556

[Moebius]

I mean to say that if he provides good service he can expect anything from 10%-20%, and that if he provides mediocre service he can expect less than 10% or nothing at all. I can be certain that this will occur unless he runs into someone who has rejected the implied agreement he entered into but has not informed anyone.

Hold on a second.

If this is your position, basically what you're saying is that since the customer is in the position to judge the performance, he gets to decide how much to tip, from $0 to 20%.

So isn't that the same as saying the customer basically gets to decide how much to tip? So what's the problem here?

[SkyTrooper]

It's subtle but essential difference. If the customer judges that the service was bad so does not tip, I have no issue with that. If the customer judges that the service was good and tips 10%, I have no issue with that. My issue comes in when the customer judges that the service was good and tips nothing.

[Inspector]

I was under the understanding that your seminal post on the topic was this:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=141397

I addressed all these points

And I responded to your addressing of them here:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=141551

But you didn't reply at all to that post. Now, that's not a crime or anything. But if you don't intend to respond, I would like to hear it; that's all.

[Inspector]

What I noted first, and what led me into this train wreck of a discussion is that if you don't tip when you have a pizza delivered in the US the pizza driver is probably not making a profit: breaking even at best. This violates the "trader principle" of trading value for value, which violates the virtue of Honesty.

As I said, but you never addressed, you are misusing that principle.

I can note a time (when I was a pizza hut shift manager in high school) when I had a driver written up, who was ultimately fired, for filling in huge numbers in the blank "tip" line mentioned in the very first post..

I either put something in that field, or put an "X" in it to prevent that sort of thing.

[SkyTrooper]

But you didn't reply at all to that post. Now, that's not a crime or anything. But if you don't intend to respond, I would like to hear it; that's all.

Sorry, I simply lost track of all the arguments I was engaged in. I'll reply to that post out of courtesy, but my thinking on this topic has evolved since. This reflects a good summary of my current reasoning:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=141935

Why did you bother to do so [make the numbers work in the example balance sheet]? As a customer, it is not my responsibility to know the balance sheets of a business. No decision I should have to make as a customer can possibly be based on the idea of having such knowledge. As I said, the economic arrangements between the employer and deliveryman are their business - not mine. The only thing I do is agree to buy a pizza, at the price they state on their menu: be that "free delivery" or "delivery: $2.50."

I'm still not sure that what you're saying here is true, but its not part of my current argument. Although it is true that it would be ridiculous to have to go on morningstar and pull up balance sheets every time you go buy a coke, you are still responsible if you do business with a company that is clearly exploiting employees. Buying a stereo that is stolen or slave cotton or conflict diamonds is wrong. If the employee was being lied to in order to deliver the pizza, I think you would also be wrong.

When he was hired he must have believed that "as long as I do my job well, I will be tipped by the customers and make a profit by providing my labor."

Am I responsible for that belief?

I think you are only responsible if:

1) You know that he believes that he will be payed if he delivers to you

2) You decide to have him deliver to you anyway, knowing what contract he believes he is entering into

More generally, you are only responsible for an implied contract if:

1) The implied contracts meets the objective criteria for an implied contract (notorious, certain, legal, and reasonable)

2) You have entered into the implied contract of your own volition

When you don't tip, you gain the value of satisfaction from pizza and the driver looses value.

Whose fault is that, though? I submit that it is blaming the victim to say that it is the customer's fault if a driver loses money because he agreed to a deal that loses him money if he does not get tipped, knowing that tips are not a part of the deal.

Your wording is wrong. Can you say in a situation where you are gaining value at the expense of someone else that you are the victim. When the driver looses money due to his belief, and you say it is his own fault, you are blaming the victim. Clearly there are cases where we can blame the victim, particularly if their problems are a result of their own irrationality (eg. if one of the Jackass guys was killed in one of his stunts).

My answer remains the same now that I can apply it to the larger principle of "it is wrong to benefit from others' irrationality," and I can give plenty of similar examples where this is wrong but I'll start with this:

Whoa, hold your horses there. "It is wrong to benefit from others' irrationality?" Have you ever bought a Japanese car? They are inexpensive because they are subsidized by the Japanese taxpayer. Do you owe a debt to the taxpayers of Japan? Have you ever bought an item that was on clearance? The store owner bought too many and had to lower his prices below cost to get rid of them. You are "benefiting from others' irrationality" in that case as well. Have you ever bought a stock that had just dropped a large amount, but you correctly judge that it will come back up? To buy stock, you have to be buying it from someone; in this case someone who is irrational in selling it. I could name countless other examples.

I'm still not sure about this, since although I might gain from the irrationality of others I do not generally wake up in the morning saying "I wonder what sucker I'll benefit from today?" Isn't one of the principles of economics that rational people benefit one another through trade? So I'll touch on each of those examples

1) I have never bought a Japanese car, and wouldn't want one.

2) I buy stocks as a value investor meaning I buy companies that I do the work to evaluate that they are good. Basically I use a modified version of Graham's approach, which I do not believe relies on the irrationality of the market. Its proved fairly profitable so far.

3) The clearance question is an operations management question, but I don't think that owners act irrationally by overstocking. They are merely being lazy in not calculating out the correct quantities of stock by using just in time stocking.

4) I think zero percent credit cards are actually an example of the problems involved in trying to exploit the irrational. The credit card companies expect that they are going to sucker in enough customers to stay until the 12 month zero interest period ends to make a profit, but it backfires on them.

5) The pizza coupon is an example of "discount pricing." This is the same as on airlines when the person next to you gets the same seat as you for less because he booked early. Companies want to sell all their products, so will sell for less to the people most willing to work for it and "clip coupons" who would normally not buy their product at all. I can explain more but I'll have to bust out an econ textbook.

I know that is cursory treatment of the examples. If you want to focus on just one we can discuss it further.

So it is the same with pizza delivery. They price their products based on the assumption of general irrationality (i.e. the tipping custom). Even if you do not participate in the assumption by which they hope to profit from you (i.e. tipping or not paying off your credit card), they don't care because the majority of people will.

So your summary of the psychology of a delivery driver is "who can I sucker into tipping me today? There are sure enough irrational suckers around for me to compensate for the Inspectors of the world!" Let me know if I am reading you wrong here.

I think this is fundamentally wrong. All the delivery drivers I knew were rather intelligent, competent people. They liked driving their cars and interacting with customers and simply wanted to trade their work for money.

I'll drop the rest of the discussion about trading value for value, because its not relevant to the current argument.

Edit: fixed spelling and grammer

Edited March 23, 2007 by badkarma556

[Inspector]

I'll drop the rest of the discussion about trading value for value, because its not relevant to the current argument.

Before we proceed, are you saying that you are dropping the claim that entering into a deal where you know the other side does not profit is a violation of the trader principle? If so, then I wouldn't want to waste everyone's time responding; i.e. if you are no longer making that claim.

[SkyTrooper]

I think a discussion based on this:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=141935

Will lead to either me finding out about some irrational premise I have or you finding out about one, which will resolve this in the most timely manner.

Before we proceed, are you saying that you are dropping the claim that entering into a deal where you know the other side does not profit is a violation of the trader principle?

I still think that intentionally seeking out irrational people in order to profit from them is a form of personal subjectivism (eg. Machiavelli, Nietzsche). I'm unsure exactly why, but I'm willing to give you the point until we come to a conclusion about the tipping question.

[BaseballGenius]

I just watched the movie Reservoir Dogs, which was Tarantino's first big movie. The opening scene was so funny to me because a lot of the dialogue was focused on whether one should tip or not at the restaurant. They all threw in their money, except one guy. He had different plans. It was a pretty good movie overall, so checking it out wouldnt be a waste of time.

I actually found the clip on YouTube. Its about 4:20 into the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D_TAdHLlY0

Edited March 24, 2007 by BaseballGenius

[Inspector]

I still think that intentionally seeking out irrational people in order to profit from them is a form of personal subjectivism (eg. Machiavelli, Nietzsche). I'm unsure exactly why, but I'm willing to give you the point until we come to a conclusion about the tipping question.

Okay, we'll leave it at that for now. However, you did use your assumption of that to argue against others besides myself, so you will need to withdraw that claim and possibly support your arguments with a different means.

[SkyTrooper]

I still think that intentionally seeking out irrational people in order to profit from them is a form of personal subjectivism (eg. Machiavelli, Nietzsche). I'm unsure exactly why, but I'm willing to give you the point until we come to a conclusion about the tipping question.

Okay, we'll leave it at that for now. However, you did use your assumption of that to argue against others besides myself, so you will need to withdraw that claim and possibly support your arguments with a different means.

Consider it withdrawn for now. Defeat this first,

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=141935

and we can get back to the other issue later if you want.

[RationalBiker]

Consider it withdrawn for now. Defeat this first,

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=141935

and we can get back to the other issue later if you want.

It would appear now that you are making a legal case rather than a moral case. Regardless of that, it still boils down to "if everyone else does, I'm obliged to do it too." Regardless of whatever contextually objective reasoning a person may have, regardless of whatever best serves their rational self-interest, your argument suggests that you would have them obliged because of what the masses do. There is no getting around that that is the center-piece of your argument.

However, the criteria you list still falls short, and where it falls short is contained in your breakdown.

5) Possible objective criteria for a contract to qualify as "implied" are that it must be notorious (well known), certain (will always occur), legal (not involving an illegal act), and reasonable

It does not always occur. It is "notoriously" known by pizza delivery companies and drivers that not everyone tips. A "tip" is a gratuity. A "gratuity" implies that it is "voluntary". If it were required contractually as you are trying to argue, that it would be a payment or a fee, not a tip or a gratuity. For clarities sake, if you are going to continue to argue that it is required, please don't call it a tip or a gratuity, call it a fee or a payment.

7) From (4) and (6), "Pizza Delivery" has occurred so many times in the US that it has become a partially stated agreement and partially an "implied contract by custom" and meets the criteria of (5).

Either it is, or it isn't. "Partially" implies that it is not consistent.

8) The form of (7) varies in the US, but generally the stated portion involves the payment for the pizza while the "implied contract by custom" involves the payment for the delivery, timeliness of the order, and the behavior of the driver. Under the "implied contract by custom" the Customer is given the privilege of determining if his expectations for the last three criteria have been met.

There is no "payment for delivery" which is separate from "payment for the pizza" when I call and say "I want a pizza delivered, this is the kind of pizza I want, how much do I owe?" If there is a payment for delivery, it should be stated when I say "I want a pizza delivered, this is the kind of pizza I want, how much do I owe?" However, if there were a "payment for delivery", that would most assuredly kick any "obligatory" gratuity right in the head.

Where I live, no delivery service ensures that you will receive your food within a certain time period. They give you a time estimate, but rarely (if ever) any kind of compensation for food delivered beyond their estimated time period. IF there was a payment for delivery within a specified time period (or even within a reasonable time-frame), they would be responsible for compensating the customer (or simply absorbing the cost) for that cost should they fail to meet their agreed upon delivery time. (As a side note I suspect the lack of an ensured delivery time is the result of pizza delivery drivers driving like maniacs and violating traffic laws in order to get the product delivered on time. This is probably coupled with the delivery business booming and being more widely utilized.)

Lastly, choosing to give any additional money beyond that which was agreed for the delivery of the food is not a matter of "privilege", it's an issue of "rights". No one grants the customer permission to make that choice, it rests solely within the to domain of his right to decide how to dispense with his property.

When it comes to a question of "value" for "value", again what must consider; of value to whom and for what purpose. For many people, whether the pizza delivery guy brings the pizza with huge smile on his face and wears lots of "flare" or whether he delivers it with a deadpan demeanor in his Marilyn Manson shirt, it would make no difference (it would offer no additional value) to the person who simply wants the pizza he agreed to pay for.