Brooklyn Burger King Delivered Beef Whoppers to Customers Expecting ‘Impossible’
ny.eater.com
ny.eater.com
Everything else aside, this is a horrible way for a business to handle the situation.
When you receive an order for something you know you definitely can't deliver, you don't plow forward and try to fob off some substitute thing on them. You either contact them and get their approval first, or you cancel the order.
On top of that, relying on the driver to inform them is another problem. Drivers aren't going to be 100% reliable at that (it's not their primary responsibility, they're in a hurry, they may fail to understand the situation, etc.), so that's a terrible plan, and you're just asking for the situation to go bad.
I personally don't care where anyone eats, but if a Jew/Muslim eats in a non-kosher/halal restaurant, they're already compromising...
Vegans are opposed to eating meat because of animal cruelty, so it is hypocritical for them to eat at a place where 99% of the menu is meat-based.
Kosher/halaal is just a specific requirement for preparing meat for consumption. There is nothing hypocritical about Jews/Muslims eating at a restaurant that also serves non-kosher/halaal meat because those restrictions don't apply to people of other religions.
On the other hand, I don't think it should be a big issue to eat some meat once in a while by mistake. The impact on the general cause is negligible.
(I can't remember if the impossible burger is vegan or not, but I remember that they don't cater to vegans)
If someone has a strong religious aversion to a product, why are they eating in a restaurant that serves that product? Furthermore, their religion dictates they only eat meats blessed by a cleric of their religion, last I checked non-halal or kosher restaurants aren't sourcing halal/kosher meats. And vegans aren't a protected religious group.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/vegans-discr...
Just being protected and getting the wrong food at a restaurant doesn't necessarily follow that you've got legal recourse to do anything.
That wasn't part of your question.
Do you typically rely on others to read your mind, while asking questions?
I also wonder if there might be punitive damages. Here's a random example of a case where there were punitive damages for a business-to-business negligent misrepresentation case: http://www.obrlaw.com/commercial-litigation.php?Third-Circui...
And I'd also wonder if there could be something like pain and suffering or emotional distress. I doubt it would work to demonstrate actual harm (health effects, etc.) in unwittingly/unwillingly eating meat, but I think it'd be pretty easy to argue that someone might feel a lot of distress from being forced to experience something they have deeply-held beliefs against.
This is kind of what I feared would happen when you take something that’s so similar to real meat and let fast food workers try to sort it out.
Get rich ?
Financial Punishment? It’s not going to put a dent in their revenue
Name and shame ? It’s happened
That's not fair, but it is just a very real thing that could happen.
I suspect it may have been that Burger King corporate added the product and expected franchisees to remove it or hide it until they had the product on hand and this particular franchisee had difficulties doing that, such as it was not noticed by the people with access to do that in the delivery app, or access was difficult to get.
This sort of thing is to be expected when we push simple applications into complicated environments (which the franchise fast food restaurant is a complicated environment that seems simple at first glance) and expect it to be easy.
“I know what you’re the king of - getting my fucking order wrong.”