Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Pizza Delivery

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

*One time I was downright livid. I spent over an hour on only one table because they had over 20 people and not surprisingly required constant service. Almost a $300 tab. They left me nothing. Upon reflection, I realized that my frustration was more with my employer who does not add a service charge to large groups. Seriously, man, if you're going to let one table monopolize me for over an hour, can't you have a policy that makes sure I get paid more than $2.13 an hour for it?

I'm confused by this, isn't minimum wage over $5 an hour? Not that I'm endorsing minimum wage, mind you, it's just that Congress seems to make a point of voting for minimum wage increases seemingly every year.

The reason that the employer can pay less than minimum wage (legally) is because there is legal recognition of the custom of tipping. Custom establishes that you tip a waitress (which I have argued) and the law recognizes that a waitress will make a certain amount in tips which will compensate for paying less than minimum wage.

Now, I'm opposed to minimum wage law in general. However if the custom is so well established that even the law recognizes it than I don't see how you can continue to argue that you are unaware of it. This is further support for my "Argument A" in post #172.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 351
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Argument A

1) There is such an entity as an "implied agreement"

2) An implied agreement can be established by custom

1) yes

2) no. Action establishes an implied agreement. An action may be customary, or it's meaning may be established by custom. An implied agreement cannot be established (or "understood") by custom alone.

At least we have clearly established the basis for our disagreement.

I think that it is physically possible to have an implied agreement established by custom (even if it is not desirable.)

Examples that come to mind:

1) You put a stamp on a letter and place it in your mailbox. It is implied that the post office will get it somewhere in 3-5 days in exchange for the payment of the stamp. If it gets there 3 months later, or not at all, do you have a reason to be upset? Has the post office broken some sort of agreement?

2) You get in a cab and tell the driver you want to go downtown. The driver does not tell you the price until you get there. "What?!" you say, "I didn't explicitly agree to pay you for driving me somewhere." What claim does the driver have on your money? What is the basis for the contract?

Most of the other examples I can think of only still exist in other countries. If there was no ethical claim on an implied agreement, how could you function in another country? In some sort of "reciprocal" culture where obligations are not stated clearly, do you have a right to take everything you want and not pay for it?

[Responding to example #2] Perfect example of an implied contract, as I've stated it, not as you've stated it. Getting in the cab and requesting a desination is an action (customarily done at the beginning of the transaction) that indicates that I intend to pay the cabbie when I've arrived. The action is customary. The action defines the contract. The contract cannot be "customary" in and of itself without the action. That is there aren't "understood" implied contracts. There are implied contracts where the action taken implies one parties intent to enter into it.

Please explain why the Cab example, which you accepted as an example of "Action establishing an implied agreement" is different from ordering a pizza. How is the action of "ordering for delivery" different from the action of "getting in a cab and stating a destination"? It seems to me that the Cab ride agreement is both customary, that the meaning is established by custom, and that the action is "implied" or understood by the custom alone. This seems to go expressly against your statement

An action may be customary, or it's meaning may be established by custom. An implied agreement cannot be established (or "understood") by custom alone.

Do you accept that my Cab example contradicts this statement (which you seemed to)? What about my other examples of implied agreements established by custom? Have you examined Argument B yet (it does not rest on Argument A)?

I still feel fairly confident about my two arguments (summarized in post #172)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused by this, isn't minimum wage over $5 an hour?

Yes and no. It's over $5/hr for non-tipped jobs. (Don't ask me how the statute defines a tipped job because I don't know.) For tipped jobs, it's $2.13/hr. However, if the worker doesn't make enough in tips to make his hourly rate greater than or equal to the minimum wage for non-tipped workers, then the employer must make up the difference. (For that to happen in my line of work, the waiter would have to be really awful or the customers would have to be extremely tight.)

So, badkarma, it's somewhat inaccurate to say that employers can pay less than the minimum wage. (In fact, think about the linguistic problems of paying less than a minimum. :) ) Rather, a different minimum wage applies to tipped jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain why the Cab example, which you accepted as an example of "Action establishing an implied agreement" is different from ordering a pizza. How is the action of "ordering for delivery" different from the action of "getting in a cab and stating a destination"? It seems to me that the Cab ride agreement is both customary, that the meaning is established by custom, and that the action is "implied" or understood by the custom alone. This seems to go expressly against your statement

Do you accept that my Cab example contradicts this statement (which you seemed to)? What about my other examples of implied agreements established by custom? Have you examined Argument B yet (it does not rest on Argument A)?

No, the cab example is like the pizza example. The implied agreement is between me and the pizza company. I call and order. The company says "Your total is $12.56, It'll be there in 20 mintues." I say "OK". Where is the agreement to give the delivery guy a tip?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the cab example is like the pizza example. The implied agreement is between me and the pizza company. I call and order. The company says "Your total is $12.56, It'll be there in 20 mintues." I say "OK". Where is the agreement to give the delivery guy a tip?

You get in the Cab, you say "25th and State please" and the Cab Driver responds "Ok." Where is the agreement that you are paying for your ride? Where is the agreement that the Cab driver can't pick up another customer on the way? Where is the agreement that the Cab driver won't stop and do some grocery shopping on the way while you wait in the Car? Where is the agreement that the Cab driver won't do donuts in a parking lot? All of this is implied by custom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You get in the Cab, you say "25th and State please" and the Cab Driver responds "Ok." Where is the agreement that you are paying for your ride? Where is the agreement that the Cab driver can't pick up another customer on the way? Where is the agreement that the Cab driver won't stop and do some grocery shopping on the way while you wait in the Car? Where is the agreement that the Cab driver won't do donuts in a parking lot? All of this is implied by custom.

Typically it's posted on the outside of the cab in big letters. It's called a rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously arguing from example is pointless if people don't feel like thinking about the examples. Yes in many places a rate is posted on the cab but in many places it is not. I've taken cabs in Mexico and abroad where it is definitely not. The other parts of the implied agreement between you and a cab driver that I mentioned were ignored by you for some reason. The point is that the vast majority of any agreements are actually implied.

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)

All the arguments against my Argument A, point (2) are baseless. There is a such thing as an implied agreement established by custom and at this point in this discussion you are engaged in some serious evasion if you deny this.

My arguments are reproduced below for your convenience. I look forward to any responses.

The relevant entities in the analysis are (you) the customer, the driver, the product and service, the payment, and the owner.

When I said "implicit" before I meant "implied"; sorry about that I know its a significant difference.

Argument A

1) There is such an entity as an "implied agreement"

2) An implied agreement can be established by custom

3) There is an agreement between you and the owner

4) "Pizza Delivery" occurs so often in the US that is has become a partially explicit (stated) agreement and partially implied

5) Ignoring the implied portion of the agreement constitutes a breach of (4)

Argument B

1) Assume there is no such entity as "implied agreement" or that you have not entered into one

2) From (1) you have actually entered into an explicit (stated) agreement with the owner where you will be delivered pizza by an employee who will lose money by doing so (his costs will exceed his income)

3) No employee who is aware of (2) would willingly enter into it

4) By (2) and (3), the employee is not willingly delivering you a pizza

5) By (4), some sort of coercion is involved (force, dishonesty, etc)

6a) Assume coercion is not involved

7a) (5) and (6a) contradict, so (1) must be false

6b) from post #147, the owner of the business does not insulate you from the mechanism used to provide the services

7b) from (5) and (6b), you are acting unethically

Edited by badkarma556
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You get in the Cab, you say "25th and State please" and the Cab Driver responds "Ok." Where is the agreement that you are paying for your ride?

All cabs have the price visible to the customer.

Badkarma, just so we're explicit: you have no intention of addressing my posts, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All cabs have the price visible to the customer.

No. All cabs do not. Incidentally, you have completely evaded the purpose of the example. Would you like me to explain that example again?

Badkarma, just so we're explicit: you have no intention of addressing my posts, correct?

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, although I put my argument positively to avoid having things spiral into bickering. Your post boils down to:

1) The agreement is only between you and the owner

2) The agreement is completely explicit

3) Because of (1) and (2), any claim on an implied agreement is irrational exploitation of you

Also included was your "history of tipping" which is founded completely on conjecture. Honestly after I read your post the first time I thought you might have had a reaction to Marx that has caused you to hold prejudices against low-level workers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ad Hominem is uncalled for. If you just want to "agree to disagree" I am fine with that, but I am fairly certain I am right about this.
It is entirely called for, because it points out how ridiculous your argument is. I'm not making argumentum ad hominem, I'm engaging in reductio ad absurdum. You are wrong that there is any agreement to tip, and your are wrong that it is perfectly clear that there is. It's perfectly clear that you are wrong, when you claim "its clear that you are entering into Agreement #3 if you order a Pizza in the United States". It is not only not clear that there is such an agreement, it is false that there is such an agreement, and it is perfectly clear that your assertion that such an agreement is "clear" is murky, indeed wrong.

Your dichotomy of arguments is false. I suggest that you go back and recheck your most recent exposition of the arguments, so that you can see why it is clearly a false dichotomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to jump in and I'll scram if you guys don't want me, but characterizing social convention as any sort of agreement is baffling to me. You could characterize it as many things, custom, etc. but how exactly do you arrive at the understanding that custom = contract?

I've already weighed in with an opinion that 'contract' has little to do with tip amounts. I'd suggest that everyone rethink the whole tip custom, and consider that if there is an obligation for the customer to act beyond payment of the base price, it is simply a moment of consideration for the services rendered.

Since your foundational assumption is self-evidently false, you can't really expect to get anywhere further with that argument, can you?

Can we spare each other appeals to the self-evident? We are talking about a convention that, to our knowledge, only exists in highly advanced societies. If you think his assumption is false, quote the assumption, then explain why it doesn't correspond to the things we all can witness.

I'm sort of amused that this conversation has turned to cab fare. I was operating from the assumption that David and his 'ilk' have been undervaluing their service people. I thought that if the cabbies were brought into the equation, there might be some sort of revelation... Minds would be changed when considering food transport vs. people transport. Now that cabbies have come into the equation, it just serves to cement the idea that the thread is still an argument over an erroneous question.

I maintain that tip custom is more easily identified than some may acknowledge. But I may be alone in what I think it requires of its participants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously arguing from example is pointless if people don't feel like thinking about the examples.

Obviously arguing from examples that aren't analogous to the current discussion are pointless. Whether or not you can establish a moral obligation to an "implied agreement" or not is immaterial to whether you have established it in the case of "tipping" various types of workers.

I didn't respond to all of your questions because they are irrelevant to whether or not pizza delivery guys deserve tips. However, I will addres the problems with your cab example in more detail then; (please note the I could care less what they do in Mexico, Argentina, Khazakstan or anywhere else besides the United States UNLESS their reasoning is logically based on objective criteria)

Where is the agreement that you are paying for your ride?

Not paying the FEE for the service is a violation of the law. Not paying a gratuity for a service you already paid for is not against the law. As much as it appears that you would have a gratuity be the same thing as a fee, they are two different things.

Where is the agreement that the Cab driver can't pick up another customer on the way?

When a cabbie accepts a fare, he is typically required by law to indicate that his cab is no longer available for service (usually by turning off his beacon). If I chose not to tip, I am not violating the law.

Where is the agreement that the Cab driver won't stop and do some grocery shopping on the way while you wait in the Car?

When a person enters a cab, the cabbie is required by law to activate his meter. If he intentionally delays the trip so as to make more money, he is violating the law and committing fraud. Metering provides an objective basis for a customer to see that he is being charged the same price that he was quoted. If there is a discrepancy that suggests the cabbie inflated the price by not taking a direct route to the location requested as part of the service he is provided, the customer can either secure a warrant for fraud or sue the cabbie or his company for the difference. Failing to provide a VOLUNTARY gratuity is not subject to the recourse of civil action because our system of law recognizes tipping to be VOLUNTARY and not an obligation.

Where is the agreement that the Cab driver won't do donuts in a parking lot?

In most states this constitutes reckless driving. Past that, again the customer can seek legal recourse for a fraudulent delay in his service and/or if his well-being was placed at risk by the cab driver's operation of the vehicle. Likewise, if the pizza delivery guy does donuts in my front yard because he didn't like being "stiffed", I will also seek the recourse of law to resolve his irrational and harmful behavior. However, the law will still recognize that there is no "implied agreement" that I should have tipped the driver because gratuities are VOLUNTARY and beyond what was paid for as part of the real agreement that exists between the customer and the service provider.

Now I suppose if you want to make a case for "implied agreements", the cabbie has implied an agreement to operate his business in compliance with the laws the govern his trade. However, this "implied agreement" still doesn't further your "tipping" case.

From your post #113:

RationalBiker,

I understand what youre saying, and Im going to have to agree with you. I dont know of any reason why everyone has to participate in a social convention if they dont want to. But does that mean the ones who tip are the ones who appreciate the service the most?

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

No matter to me as you can proceed however you like. I will not do things simply because the majority does them. I will endeavor to do those things which are in my rational self-interest to do and that are based on reasoning other than consensus. If you want to get anywhere in this argument with the Objectivists on this board, you are going to have to figure out a couple of things and argue those;

1) What objective criteria exists that justifies tips? If you can't tell yet, social customs and what the majority does isn't working.

2) What objective criteria exists to determine who deserves tips and who does not? Provide objective reasoning why pizza guys "deserve" a tip and plumbers do not.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was operating from the assumption that David and his 'ilk' have been undervaluing their service people.

I'm not sure if you are considering me as one of the "ilk", but I'll address my part in this. As I said I frequently tip, but I do so for specific, objective reasons based on values contextual to my life. Since you bring up the term "undervaluing", I think it's important to reiterate that values are contextual to whom and for what purpose. While you may think someone else is "undervaluing" something, you may be applying a value system to that pertains to your life, beliefs and circumstances which may be totally irrelevant to the next guy. Before you bandy about such terms, it's best that you make the case that a specific person is "undervaluing" something with a specific agrument based on objective facts. Otherwise you are just making baseless accusations.

Even though I tend to tip reasonably generously, I have specifically argued against the concept that tipping is morally obligatory to everyone at all times absent their own values and reasoning just because it's a "social custom". If tomorrow it becomes a social custom to wear purple hats, you can count me out on that one.

I maintain that tip custom is more easily identified than some may acknowledge.

I don't think anyone here as denied such a custom exists. What's under debate is one's obligation to follow it.

But I may be alone in what I think it requires of its participants.

Okay, perhaps you are alone in what you think it requires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think his assumption is false, quote the assumption, then explain why it doesn't correspond to the things we all can witness.
In fact, I did quote the assumption. I said...
You are simply mistaken about one aspect of the agreement, which is the clause 'there is an unstated (but understood) agreement that you will pay a fee "the tip" to the driver that is approximately 20% of the bill unless you are not satisfied with the service'. If you take that out, that would be an accurate understanding of the agreement that actually exists in the US. I don't just think it's clear that you are wrong that your invention, Agreement 3, exists in the US, I know that you are wrong. Since your foundational assumption is self-evidently false, you can't really expect to get anywhere further with that argument, can you?
To highlight the precise assumption, it is this part: 'there is an unstated (but understood) agreement that you will pay a fee "the tip" to the driver that is approximately 20% of the bill unless you are not satisfied with the service'. Since we're now dealing with the argument mode "argumentum ad perceptually self evident", since his argument is completely lacking in evidence and has been asserted to be perceptually self evident, and since being axiomatic (perceptually self-evident) is kind of a court of highest appeals, you can't possibly expect me to support his rotten argument at the expense of my own by saying that my argument is not equally perceptually self evident. If there has been evidence to show there there is such an agreement, I would need to address it; but there hasn't, so I shouldn't (that would imply the existence of the non-existent). It is not the case that there is such an agreement, and no evidence has been given to support the claim. The claim is arbitrary; entertaining an arbitrary claim is at best sloppy intellectual conduct, and in some cases is immoral, especially with the arbitrariness of the claim has been pointed out repeatedly. Obviously, then, I don't take seriously any arbitrary claim, and at least for the moment because I hold that knowingly adhering to an arbitrary claim is particularly evil, I will concentrate on isolating such claims and exposing them for what they are. That's all I'm really trying to say here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhow, the correct argument is this.

Argument 1 and Only 1

  • 1) There is such an entity as an "implied agreement"
  • 2) An implied agreement is established by custom (by definition: that's the difference between implied and express) -- but not all "customes" are agreements.
  • 3) Any agreement states the conditions under which the two parties are willing to trade value
  • 4) An implicit agreement asserts that some conditions are so self-evident in the nature of the trade that they need not be overtly stated
  • 5) There is an agreement between you and the owner
  • 6) The implicit agreement is that the customer will pay the stated price, and the owner will cause to be delivered said pizza in good condition.
  • 7) An agreement also exists between the owner and his agents, pertaining to delivery.
  • 8) Because of (7), delivery is not contingent on a tip, and it is not at all reasonable to conclude that the delivery agent agrees to deliver the pizza if and only if a tip is given.
  • 9) Therefore, there is no implicit agreement to tip.

Failure to grasp point (8) is where taxi and check-stiffing in a restaurant arguments fall ballistically on their faces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argument 1 and Only 1

    [*]1) There is such an entity as an "implied agreement"

    [*]2) An implied agreement is established by custom (by definition: that's the difference between implied and express) -- but not all "customes" are agreements.

    [*]3) Any agreement states the conditions under which the two parties are willing to trade value

    [*]4) An implicit agreement asserts that some conditions are so self-evident in the nature of the trade that they need not be overtly stated

    [*]5) There is an agreement between you and the owner

    [*]6) The implicit agreement is that the customer will pay the stated price, and the owner will cause to be delivered said pizza in good condition.

    [*]7) An agreement also exists between the owner and his agents, pertaining to delivery.

    [*]8) Because of (7), delivery is not contingent on a tip, and it is not at all reasonable to conclude that the delivery agent agrees to deliver the pizza if and only if a tip is given.

    [*]9) Therefore, there is no implicit agreement to tip.

No. You have not provided support for (6), and (8) does not follow (7). The agreement between the owner and his driver states that the driver will be allowed to keep the tips that he can be reasonably expected to get. You have an implied agreement with the owner that you will be tipping his driver. As a waitress pointed out earlier in this thread, this implied agreement is not pulled out of thin air, since even the government allows waitresses to be paid less than minimum wage because tipping is so prevalent of an implied agreement.

Your definition of "agreement" was the same that I was operating under. I dropped the wording "implicit" in favor of "implied" some time ago, but otherwise we are in agreement on what an "implicit agreement" is.

Thank you for finally granting me points (1) and (2).

The relevant entities in the analysis are (you) the customer, the driver, the product and service, the payment, and the owner.

Argument A

1) There is such an entity as an "implied agreement"

2) An implied agreement can be established by custom

3) There is an agreement between you and the owner

4) "Pizza Delivery" occurs so often in the US that is has become a partially explicit (stated) agreement and partially implied

5) Ignoring the implied portion of the agreement constitutes a breach of (4)

Argument B

1) Assume there is no such entity as "implied agreement" or that you have not entered into one

2) From (1) you have actually entered into an explicit (stated) agreement with the owner where you will be delivered pizza by an employee who will lose money by doing so (his costs will exceed his income)

3) No employee who is aware of (2) would willingly enter into it

4) By (2) and (3), the employee is not willingly delivering you a pizza

5) By (4), some sort of coercion is involved (force, dishonesty, etc)

6a) Assume coercion is not involved

7a) (5) and (6a) contradict, so (1) must be false

6b) from post #147, the owner of the business does not insulate you from the mechanism used to provide the services

7b) from (5) and (6b), you are acting unethically

Edited by badkarma556
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously arguing from examples that aren't analogous to the current discussion are pointless. Whether or not you can establish a moral obligation to an "implied agreement" or not is immaterial to whether you have established it in the case of "tipping" various types of workers.

Our misunderstanding was apparently in the assumption that you believed I was trying to prove that you should tip delivery drivers because you take cabs. I was providing support for the fact (which I took as self-evident) that an agreement can be implied and that the implied agreement can be established by custom. Note that although the form of the agreement is established by custom it is still mutually understood and only entered into by your own volition and the volition of the other party.

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.

If you want to get anywhere in this argument with the Objectivists on this board, you are going to have to figure out a couple of things and argue those;

1) What objective criteria exists that justifies tips? If you can't tell yet, social customs and what the majority does isn't working.

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

2) What objective criteria exists to determine who deserves tips and who does not? Provide objective reasoning why pizza guys "deserve" a tip and plumbers do not.

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.

3) 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.

3) 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?"

Edit: Split question 3 into two parts.

Edited by badkarma556
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. You have not provided support for (6), and (8) does not follow (7).

I'm not going to speak for David, but the claim of no support or (6) is ludicrous.

The support is that this is the service that the pizza company advertises! This is what it claims to be in the business of doing.... delivery hot pizzas to your door.

I could claim "custom", i.e. that its' customary that when you call pizza delivery companies they deliver pizzas, but this would only illustrate the assertion of custom as being highly overused. as you attempted to do with the taxi example.

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

Tipping to me seems to succeed at a,c, and d, and FAIL MISERABLY at b. Otherwise Baseball genius wouldn't be complaing about getting stiffed all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. You have not provided support for (6), and (8) does not follow (7). The agreement between the owner and his driver states that the driver will be allowed to keep the tips that he can be reasonably expected to get. You have an implied agreement with the owner that you will be tipping his driver.
Not single word of what you are saying is true, and I will not engage in further discussion with you, since the level of evasion that you are engaging in is beyond egregious. It is inconceivable to me that you can really believe what you are saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Tipping to me seems to succeed at a,c, and d, and FAIL MISERABLY at b. Otherwise Baseball genius wouldn't be complaing about getting stiffed all the time.

This is a helpful criteria. b seems an impossible requirement to meet for any implied agreement. In my experience it does not "fail miserably" since, although its been a while since I worked in a Pizza Hut, I remember the drivers complaining to me almost every time they did not get tipped (eg. "That bastard stiffed me!"). My usual questions were how long it took them to get the pizza there and if the driver had been friendly. On occasions when the cooks were significantly behind and pizzas were getting to the drivers late, the drivers did not complain to me about not being tipped even though they would ask each other "did you get tipped on the last run? No? That sucks." Drivers would in those cases prod the cooks into working faster or actually help the cooks make the pizzas. I think this shows that the nature of the implied agreement is that the drivers do not expect tips when they make mistakes or the food does not get to the customer on time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is fairly certain that a customer who gets into a taxi will tell you where he wants to go I think.

Its fairly certain that if I meet a Japanes person for the first time, there will be bowing involved.

It is not fairly certain that any custom that is notoriously know to be discretionary will actually occur at every opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not single word of what you are saying is true, and I will not engage in further discussion with you, since the level of evasion that you are engaging in is beyond egregious. It is inconceivable to me that you can really believe what you are saying.

Why? I've clearly shown how I came to my conclusions and you have ignored them. Than I show you why I disagree with your logic and you ignore that. I've addressed every point you've asked me to address.

I think you have concluded that you live in a world where every low wage worker reads Marx and is out to exploit you're money from you, while I am a neo-Kantian out to support them. Like I've said I would much rather take your side since pragmatically it seems to save me money. However, objectively every argument I've seen so far seems to support that I should tip a delivery driver if they provide good service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Would the following agreement meet all the criteria for an implied agreement?

"The driver will bring the customer the pizza in a timely manner. The driver will be nice to the customer and will make the customer feel comfortable when he pays for the pizza. The pizza will be warm and the driver will check before leaving the store that the pizza is in good condition. If the driver does all of these things than he will be given a fee 'the tip' that is 10%-20% of the bill. If the driver does not do these things than the customer can choose not to pay 'the tip'. If the driver does some of these things but not all of them the customer can choose to pay less than 10%. The customer will be trusted to evaluate if these criteria have been met."

I think this meets criteria "b" in the United States, since we can reasonably expect that tipping will always occur when this agreement is fulfilled by the driver. When tipping does not occur the customer has either judged that all of the above criteria were not met or has come up with a complicated philosophical explanation that denies the existence of implied agreements. For these reasons, we can "assume this means can be expected to always occur."

Edit: Note by the above agreement, which I consider to be most likely, baseballgenius is still wrong if he fills in the blank tip line on the credit card slip. He has agreed to allow the customer to evaluate if he has fulfilled the agreement.

Edited by badkarma556
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would the following agreement meet all the criteria for an implied agreement?

"The driver will bring the customer the pizza in a timely manner. The driver will be nice to the customer and will make the customer feel comfortable when he pays for the pizza. The pizza will be warm and the driver will check before leaving the store that the pizza is in good condition. If the driver does all of these things than he will be given a fee 'the tip' that is 10%-20% of the bill. If the driver does not do these things than the customer can choose not to pay 'the tip'. If the driver does some of these things but not all of them the customer can choose to pay less than 10%. The customer will be trusted to evaluate if these criteria have been met."

You mean I can be "certain" that the tip will be anything from 0 to X? Well then Baseball genius shoudln't have a beef with any tip he gets then.

Or do you mean that I can be certain that if I perform good service, I will get 20%? In which case I'd say that the actual occurence in reality doesn't even guarantee that so your claim of certainty can't be based upon the actual custom. Just what you'd like the custom to be.

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.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean I can be "certain" that the tip will be anything from 0 to X? Well then Baseball genius shoudln't have a beef with any tip he gets then.

Or do you mean that I can be certain that if I perform good service, I will get 20%? In which case I'd say that the actual occurence in reality doesn't even guarantee that so your claim of certainty can't be based upon the actual custom. Just what you'd like the custom to be.

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.

If there is circularity involved here, I am not aware of it. Please expand on that.

Edited by badkarma556
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...