Mystery Shopping, the law & the attorneys
Warning: For Full Access Please Log In or Create an Account (Free)
Legally, it matters. Payment may refer to multiple types and purposes of payments to a shopper. There may be incentives, fees, or bonuses. Reimbursement is specific and limited to repayment. It is used only after a shopper has paid money and when it is part of a given shop contract. The MSC distinguishes between payment types just as we distinguish between payment types. it is important for keeping clear records.
I understand your point that It would be nice if the shopper could be paid the cost of the meal based on the fact that they completed at least some of the shop tasks.and could report on whatever they could complete in the given circumstances. Was this contingency-- an unexpected and unforeseen and possibly unforeseeable event-- part of the shop agreement?
Speaking of unforeseeable: because of several extensive discussions, have unanticipated third party payments become foreseeable?
I understand your point that It would be nice if the shopper could be paid the cost of the meal based on the fact that they completed at least some of the shop tasks.and could report on whatever they could complete in the given circumstances. Was this contingency-- an unexpected and unforeseen and possibly unforeseeable event-- part of the shop agreement?
Speaking of unforeseeable: because of several extensive discussions, have unanticipated third party payments become foreseeable?
Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished. - Lao-Tzu
If this were brought to court, I suspect that the MSC would prevail:
* As can be seen from the opinions of the attorneys, this is not clear-cut.
* "Past Practice" is a huge part of the law and, from what I can tell, MSC's very typically do not reimburse meals for which the shopper did not directly pay. (The scenarios where a spouse pays would be different.)
* Some restaurant shops are offered with reimbursements for the meal purchased. Others offer a higher flat fee and expect the shopper to cover all expenses incurred. In court, the MSC would show both practices as normal an argue that the reimbursement is separate from the fee and therefore the shopper not due a fee if the shopper did not incur an expense.
* When a shopper's expenses are covered by a third party, the shopper does not incur any damages if not reimbursed. The shopper has, after all, received all anticipated compensation upon completion of the shop.
Of course, whether or not this is "ethical" is a totally different discussion.
* As can be seen from the opinions of the attorneys, this is not clear-cut.
* "Past Practice" is a huge part of the law and, from what I can tell, MSC's very typically do not reimburse meals for which the shopper did not directly pay. (The scenarios where a spouse pays would be different.)
* Some restaurant shops are offered with reimbursements for the meal purchased. Others offer a higher flat fee and expect the shopper to cover all expenses incurred. In court, the MSC would show both practices as normal an argue that the reimbursement is separate from the fee and therefore the shopper not due a fee if the shopper did not incur an expense.
* When a shopper's expenses are covered by a third party, the shopper does not incur any damages if not reimbursed. The shopper has, after all, received all anticipated compensation upon completion of the shop.
Of course, whether or not this is "ethical" is a totally different discussion.
Hard work builds character and homework is good for your soul.
How do the MSC's know who paid the check...you upload the receipt (bill is paid), report written. The report is what they need to submit, taking a friend to dinner and they want to pay, is no ones business, but correctly writing report is their business....how many take husbands/wifes to dinner, money comes out of joint accounts, so who's paying, you or your spouse. I think this is shoppers business, and i most certainly think shopper will win in a court case. Nothing has ever been said as to who HAS to pay bill.
Live consciously....
Thanks for the great info, BirdyC.
I honestly can't predict how an actual court would rule, but I think they would have to give weight to the fact the client or MSC pocketed the $75 meant as a gift to the shopper. The common sense way to make everyone whole would be to give the $75 gift to the shopper as originally intended. The client would have its report, the shopper would have her meal, and the $75 gift would go to the intended recipient.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2018 01:51AM by mystery2me.
I honestly can't predict how an actual court would rule, but I think they would have to give weight to the fact the client or MSC pocketed the $75 meant as a gift to the shopper. The common sense way to make everyone whole would be to give the $75 gift to the shopper as originally intended. The client would have its report, the shopper would have her meal, and the $75 gift would go to the intended recipient.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2018 01:51AM by mystery2me.
How is the shopper not whole? The shopper's unpaid money is available usable. This money has the potential for investment, earning interest, or funding another shop and generating another financial return. This could happen immediately, potentially, and the shopper could achieve a better financial condition.
Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished. - Lao-Tzu
It would be interesting to get thoughts on this from an employment law standpoint being that we are contractors - and how that plays into things . . . .
We have had enough thoughts from OP's atty. friends....no written laws in our instrutions, why go to another atty?
They will defend you (the shopper) if the price is right......
They will defend you (the shopper) if the price is right......
Live consciously....
I'm not a lawyer, but I've worked in a law office for a long time, so I am familiar with contract law.
When you agree to perform X in exchange for Y, a contract is formed. There are only two parties to that contract, you and the other party. Once you perform your end and are paid, what happens after that, not related to the task performed (in other words you did the work yourself and did not contract it out) is your business.
When you agree to perform X in exchange for Y, a contract is formed. There are only two parties to that contract, you and the other party. Once you perform your end and are paid, what happens after that, not related to the task performed (in other words you did the work yourself and did not contract it out) is your business.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.