# Can we deny rides to non account holders?



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

why are we giving free rides to riders that did not request uber via the app? can anyone answer that question??? according to uber we are ic's, so why do we not have the right to deny someone who is not an account holder, is not paying a fare and is not requesting via the software? why are we allowing these free loaders in our cars? uber needs to allow for the account holder to request the allotted seats desired and pay $1 for each additional seat.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

Why? Because it's advertised as 1-4 riders for the same price. You don't get a choice.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Tim In Cleveland said:


> Why? Because it's advertised as 1-4 riders for the same price. You don't get a choice.


it may be advertised that way, but it's our car. why are we giving rides to people that are not paying the fare? if i don't get a choice that means lawyers can use this to prove we are employers.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uber strike said:


> it may be advertised that way, but it's our car. why are we giving rides to people that are not paying the fare? if i don't get a choice that means lawyers can use this to prove we are employers.


Uhhh, no. You are a contractor. You agreed to the definitions and pay schedule. Your choice is to not accept the definitions and pay schedule. Please stop trying to turn us into taxis.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Uhhh, no. You are a contractor. You agreed to the definitions and pay schedule. Your choice is to not accept the definitions and pay schedule. Please stop trying to turn us into taxis.


so you're saying it's actually in the contract that we have to give rides to people that do not have an account with uber? and what do you mean taxi's? this will benefit all drivers. uber will either have to make each rider request a ride which means more demand or account holder has to pay $1 for each additional seat.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

uber strike said:


> it may be advertised that way, but it's our car. why are we giving rides to people that are not paying the fare? if i don't get a choice that means lawyers can use this to prove we are employers.


nope ... you cannot charge what you want; you agreed to the Terms of Service when you signed up. If you want to charge something different, then start your own service ... but if you try to charge something different than what Uber is charging customers, you'll likely be deactivated.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Ziggy said:


> nope ... you cannot charge what you want; you agreed to the Terms of Service when you signed up. If you want to charge something different, then start your own service ... but if you try to charge something different than what Uber is charging customers, you'll likely be deactivated.


Read your contract: You have the explicit right to negotiate the fare with the pax, and the Uber published fare is only the "default' fare in the event that you and the pax do not negotiate a fare. The contract specifically says that you have the right to negotiate a lower fare - but it does NOT say that you cannot negotiate a higher fare (which is UberSpeak for IMPLYING you can't negotiate a higher fare). The contract is explicit in its terms. 
Good luck actually executing the terms of that part of the agreement... 
a CSR here has already said there's not way for a driver to implement a negotiated fare without getting deactivated.

Someone should sue Uber.
Ok... someone ELSE should sue Uber.

4.1
_In addition, the parties acknowledge and agree that as between you and Company, the Fare is a recommended amount, and the primary purpose of *the pre-arranged Fare is to act as the default amount in the event you do not negotiate a different amount.* You shall always have the right to: (i) charge a fare that is less than the pre-arranged Fare; or (ii) negotiate, at your request, a Fare that is lower than the prearranged Fare (each of (i) and (ii) herein, a "Negotiated Fare"). Company shall consider all such requests from you in good faith._​


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Read your contract: You have the explicit right to negotiate the fare with the pax, and the Uber published fare is only the "default' fare in the event that you and the pax do not negotiate a fare. The contract specifically says that you have the right to negotiate a lower fare - but it does NOT say that you cannot negotiate a higher fare (which is UberSpeak for IMPLYING you can't negotiate a higher fare). The contract is explicit in its terms.
> Good luck actually executing the terms of that part of the agreement...
> a CSR here has already said there's not way for a driver to implement a negotiated fare without getting deactivated.
> 
> ...


Thanks Michael - Cleveland ... I'll have to reread the latest contract.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Ziggy said:


> Thanks Michael - Cleveland ... I'll have to reread the latest contract.


(Just an aside: the old Nov 2014 contract had the same/similar language)


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> (Just an aside: the old Nov 2014 contract had the same/similar language)


I read it, then too, but didn't find anything that would be contrary to how I was planning on working Uber ... so I must not have kept it top-of-mind. Though, if I'm going to continue the Uber _mis_adventure ... then I'll need to reread it to make sure my assets are covered.


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

uber strike said:


> it may be advertised that way, but it's our car. why are we giving rides to people that are not paying the fare? if i don't get a choice that means lawyers can use this to prove we are employers.


Why do you and so many others here insist that if you're an independent contractor you can make up any rules you want? You signed a contract with Uber and agreed to work by their terms and conditions. Those terms say you will give rides for up to four passengers. What's so difficult to understand?

If you don't like your contract terms, go work as a contractor for some other company. Good luck with that.


----------



## dirtnaprightnow (Sep 24, 2015)

I'm not sure about you contract but there is NO way I will ever accept a non registered users. Way way too much liability and danger. 

That is a street hail. No no no no. Never. 

Same with under 18 (16 is age of consent here) unless one member of the party is over 18 and is in loco parentus.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

dirtnaprightnow said:


> I'm not sure about you contract but there is NO way I will ever accept a non registered users. Way way too much liability and danger.
> That is a street hail. No no no no. Never.
> Same with under 18 (16 is age of consent here) unless one member of the party is over 18 and is in loco parentus.


You misundertand the OP... they're talking about one registered Uber user riding with three friends (for free) - not being able to charge for the 'unregistered' users. The OP wasn't talking about street hails.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Ziggy said:


> I read it, then too, but didn't find anything that would be contrary to how I was planning on working Uber ... so I must not have kept it top-of-mind. Though, if I'm going to continue the Uber _mis_adventure ... then I'll need to reread it to make sure my assets are covered.


I'm taking the CSR at her word and won't 'test' the "negotiated fare" until I'm ready to stop driving.


----------



## dirtnaprightnow (Sep 24, 2015)

Coachman said:


> Why do you and so many others here insist that if you're an independent contractor you can make up any rules you want? You signed a contract with Uber and agreed to work by their terms and conditions. Those terms say you will give rides for up to four passengers. What's so difficult to understand?
> 
> If you don't like your contract terms, go work as a contractor for some other company. Good luck with that.


As an IC, you may refuse service as long as you don't violate Title VI USC 42 (discrimination based on the usual suspects) Uber provides "data & accounting services " not transportation. You do that. Also read all the safety FAQ Uber puts out. They echo this concept.

You IC status is very muddy if you drink the koolaid. Take a couple minutes to read about several CA suits to get a flavor of what your status means.


----------



## dirtnaprightnow (Sep 24, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You misundertand the OP... they're talking about one registered Uber user riding with three friends (for free) - not being able to charge for the 'unregistered' users. The OP wasn't talking about street hails.


If they DONT have a UBER account I give them a referral card with my promo code. It has resulted in quite a few "bonuses "


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I'm taking the CSR at her word and won't 'test' the "negotiated fare" until I'm ready to stop driving.


there is no need to test the negotiated fare in this case. you will still give rides to the account holder. i'm talking about denying rides to people trying to get in my car on someone else's fare. you can't negotiate a fare with these people because they never even requested via the uber software. they are street hailing. that's illegal. we actually reserve the right to deny them rides.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uber strike said:


> so you're saying it's actually in the contract that we have to give rides to people that do not have an account with uber? and what do you mean taxi's? this will benefit all drivers. uber will either have to make each rider request a ride which means more demand or account holder has to pay $1 for each additional seat.


The definition and authority is Ubers. It's how contracting works. I've been in business for myself almost my entire life. The person who writes the contract defines service to be provided. You're free to negotiate with them or reject the offer.


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> The definition and authority is Ubers. It's how contracting works.


A lot of people here don't understand that at all. When they hear independent contractor they hear the _independent_ but they miss the _contractor._


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Read your contract: You have the explicit right to negotiate the fare with the pax, and the Uber published fare is only the "default' fare in the event that you and the pax do not negotiate a fare. The contract specifically says that you have the right to negotiate a lower fare - but it does NOT say that you cannot negotiate a higher fare (which is UberSpeak for IMPLYING you can't negotiate a higher fare). The contract is explicit in its terms.
> Good luck actually executing the terms of that part of the agreement...
> a CSR here has already said there's not way for a driver to implement a negotiated fare without getting deactivated.
> 
> ...


You're confused. The contract does not have to forbid everything under the sun, it allows you to either accept their rates or negotiate a lower one. All other options are excluded by default. You can't accept payment in trade for services either and that's not excluded. You can't accept payment in goods either and that's not forbidden.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Coachman said:


> A lot of people here don't understand that at all. When they hear independent contractor they hear the _independent_ but they miss the _contractor._


Exactly.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uber strike said:


> there is no need to test the negotiated fare in this case. you will still give rides to the account holder. i'm talking about denying rides to people trying to get in my car on someone else's fare. you can't negotiate a fare with these people because they never even requested via the uber software. they are street hailing. that's illegal. we actually reserve the right to deny them rides.


what are you talking about? You're making it sound like someone requests a ride, you pick up them and the other people in the party are complete strangers jumping in to your car.
They're not.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> The definition and authority is Ubers. It's how contracting works. I've been in business for myself almost my entire life. The person who writes the contract defines service to be provided. You're free to negotiate with them or reject the offer.


if the contract term(s) are ambiguous and it was written by the party who has superior power (as Uber does) then the ambiguous portion of the contract is defined in favor of the non-auhoring party.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Coachman said:


> A lot of people here don't understand that at all. When they hear independent contractor they hear the _independent_ but they miss the _contractor._


Theres a lot of truth in what you said, but it goes both ways. Uber cannot just put things in their contract that exert the control of an employer over an employee and then justify the control by saying - look, it's in the contract'. Uber can say whatever it wants in its driver contract, but that doesn't automatically make it enforceable - as Uber is now finding out in federal court.

The terms within a contract still must comply with law, be clear and unambiguois and in most cases, not be exploitative or manipulative (which can happen when there is a great disparity between the parties - like a multi-billion dollar multi-national corp authoring the document which must be signed by an individual before the individual can use the service the big company provides the individual who uses it to earn a living).


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> You're confused. The contract does not have to forbid everything under the sun, it allows you to either accept their rates or negotiate a lower one. All other options are excluded by default. You can't accept payment in trade for services either and that's not excluded. You can't accept payment in goods either and that's not forbidden.


About contracts, I am one of the more 'not confused' here. Especially when it comes to ambiguity in contract langauge.
But you'll believe what you want - so no problems from me.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> The contract does not have to forbid everything under the sun, it allows you to either accept their rates or negotiate a lower one. .


That's not what the contract says. The wording is explicit (for legal reasons*).
It does not say "allow you to either accept a fare or *negotiate a lower one*" as you say...
It says:
"_*the pre-arranged Fare is to act as the default amount 
in the event you do not negotiate a different amount."*_

*The word "different" is not used by mistake. If they could, Uber would have used the word 'lower', but that would exert the control of an employer and make the rider a client of Uber's, not the driver (as defined elsewhere in the contract).


----------



## vaybar (Jun 24, 2015)

uber strike said:


> why are we giving free rides to riders that did not request uber via the app? can anyone answer that question??? according to uber we are ic's, so why do we not have the right to deny someone who is not an account holder, is not paying a fare and is not requesting via the software? why are we allowing these free loaders in our cars? uber needs to allow for the account holder to request the allotted seats desired and pay $1 for each additional seat.


----------



## vaybar (Jun 24, 2015)

You can refuse if the account holder.is noting the car. You cannot ask for money though.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

vaybar said:


> You can refuse if the account holder.is noting the car. You cannot ask for money though.


this guy has a point. you guys often give rides to people when the account holder is not even in the car. but you guys will do whatever just to get that cheap fare, instead of putting pressure on uber to pay better rates so that we would be willing to oblige and give everybody rides.


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Theres a lot of truth in what you said, but it goes both ways. Uber cannot just put things in their contract that exert the control of an employer over an employee and then justify the control by saying - look, it's in the contract'. Uber can say whatever it wants in its driver contract, but that doesn't automatically make it enforeable - as Uber is now finding out in federal court.
> 
> The terms within a contract still must comply with law, be clear and unambiguois and in most cases, not be exploitative or manipulative (which can happen when there is a great disparity between the parties - like a multi-billion dollar multi-national corp authoring the document which must be signed by an individual before the individual can use the service the big company provides the individual who uses it to earn a living).


None of that lends any credibility to the OP's argument. If you get a request to carry four passenger's it's not up to your discretion how many of them you'll allow into your vehicle.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Coachman said:


> None of that lends any credibility to the OP's argument. If you get a request to carry four passenger's it's not up to your discretion how many of them you'll allow into your vehicle.


Your contract says you have the right to accept or decline any ride... and that Uber only provides leads to drivers. Your car, Your rules. Now that doesn't mean that Uber won't deactivate you for exerting your rights.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> if the contract term(s) are ambiguous and it was written by the party who has superior power (as Uber does) then the ambiguous portion of the contract is defined in favor of the non-auhoring party.


I agree. Ambiguity does leave the door open to interpretation. Although finding a single part of the contract ambiguous only affects that part, and not the rest. I would bet that Uber has some pretty solid precedence behind its terms though. They win the vast majority of their cases.

You make a good point.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> About contracts, I am one of the more 'not confused' here. Especially when it comes to ambiguity in contract langauge.
> But you'll believe what you want - so no problems from me.


I have negotiated contracts as a business owner both as the IC and as the C for 26 of my 51 years on earth. I'm retired and not an expert, but I have a hell of a lot of experience and legal advice. Uber is on pretty solid legal ground. CA is the only case I know of where employee status has been challenged successfully and they have _the most overturned_ agenda driven courts in the nation.

The default is far more likely to be it's not allowed if it's not described as allowed in the contract.

I had some stoners, who were kickass at their job, argue this against me. They said I never specified they couldn't leave all of their trash behind at job sites. The court found I never said they could, by default.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's not what the contract says. The wording is explicit (for legal reasons*).
> It does not say "allow you to either accept a fare or *negotiate a lower one*" as you say...
> It says:
> "_*the pre-arranged Fare is to act as the default amount
> ...


But they then define _different_ as lower. Read (i) and (ii) as I remember. They do not specify that you can not trade ivory or rare earth magnets for rides. Are they then allowed? What if I say "show **** for a ride" in an area that has no law against it?

Ambiguity is a thing, an argument, but one that loses 99.99% of the time when both parties should understand the purpose of the language of the contract. ALL fares default to Uber's rate unless you negotiate a lower rate, so says the contract, and we all know it.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> I agree. Ambiguity does leave the door open to interpretation. Although finding a single part of the contract ambiguous only affects that part, and not the rest. I would bet that Uber has some pretty solid precedence behind its terms though. They win the vast majority of their cases.


Absolutely right - ambiguity is generally challenged, clause by clause. But look at what Judge Chen did in the CA 9th Circuit... he was so incensed at the way the contract as a whole was written (one sided to the benefit of Uber with ambiguous clauses throughout) that he admonished Uber for its wording and forced them to make changes (and deal with the whole opt-out of binding arbitration clause differently). I believe the word he used regarding the contract as a whole was "unconscionable".


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> But look at what Judge Chen did in the CA 9th Circuit


The CA ninth circuit court is the most overturned court in the nation. There is no more agenda driven court in the US. It's almost a guarantee you will get a federal court appeal. A statement or ruling by the ninth is a punch line in a joke about the constitution. CA is the worst state for just bulldozing rights for nanny state. I could give you endless laws and regulations in CA that have the sole purpose of making it impossible for you to be a free person.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> I have negotiated contracts as a business owner both as the IC and as the C for 26 of my 51 years on earth. I'm retired and not an expert, but I have a hell of a lot of experience and legal advice. Uber is on pretty solid legal ground. CA is the only case I know of where employee status has been challenged successfully and they have _the most overturned_ agenda driven courts in the nation.
> 
> The default is far more likely to be it's not allowed if it's not described as allowed in the contract.
> 
> I had some stoners, who were kickass at their job, argue this against me. They said I never specified they couldn't leave all of their trash behind at job sites. The court found I never said they could, by default.


Couple of points: The CA case is not a 'state' case - it's a FEDERAL case (9th circuit) and even if the ruling applies only to CA drivers, it will be precedent for the federal courts. In the Uber driver agreement it's not that it neglects to say drivers can't negotiate a higher fare - it's that the sentence explicitly says drivers & pax can negotiate a DIRFFERNT fare. The sentence following is not 'restrictive, but rather informative (making it meaningless). No two courts or judges see things the same way, but I've defended a claim (against) ambiguity in the state of Ohio Court of Appeals (and won)... it was quite an education. IMO, Uber is not on solid ground at all with their driver agreement.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> But they then define _different_ as lower.


 No, they can't. But more importantly, they didn't.
In contract law, you (the court) look at the "plain" meaning of a word... 
not how one of the parties wants to define a word's meaning.
_
"A principle used by courts in interpreting contracts that provides that *the objective definitions of contractual terms are controlling, irrespective of whether the language comports with the actual intention of either party*."_
 - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Plain-Meaning+Rule​


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Couple of points: The CA case is not a 'state' case - it's a FEDERAL case (9th circuit) and even if the ruling applies only to CA drivers, it will be precedent for the federal courts. In the Uber driver agreement it's not that it neglects to say drivers can't negotiate a higher fare - it's that the sentence explicitly says drivers & pax can negotiate a DIRFFERNT fare. The sentence following is not 'restrictive, but rather informative (making it meaningless). No two courts or judges see things the same way, but I've defended a claim (against) ambiguity in the state of Ohio Court of Appeals (and won)... it was quite an education. IMO, Uber is not on solid ground at all with their driver agreement.


Sorry, no. Yes, the ninth is a federal court, but the ninth is the joke of all federal courts. They are 100% agenda and 0% constitution driven. A ruling by the ninth is a joke and has been for decades. Informative is not meaningless, it's constricting by nature. What do we mean by negotiated? See (i) and (ii). Is it perfect? Nope. Do we all know what it means the same? Yes we do, unless you want to lie and pretend you don't.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> The CA ninth circuit court is the most overturned court in the nation. There is no more agenda driven court in the US. It's almost a guarantee you will get a federal court appeal. A statement or ruling by the ninth is a punch line in a joke about the constitution. CA is the worst state for just bulldozing rights for nanny state. I could give you endless laws and regulations in CA that have the sole purpose of making it impossible for you to be a free person.


irrelevant to the discussion <shrug>


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No, they can't. But more importantly, they didn't.
> In contract law, you (the court) look at the "plain" meaning of a word...
> not how one of the parties wants to define a word's meaning.
> _
> ...


No, you don't. there is NO PLAIN meaning of the word if the word is defined in the contract itself. I can say you can not accept flying monkeys and then define flying monkeys as CASH in the contract and that word now means cash. Period.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Sorry, no. Yes, the ninth is a federal court, but the ninth is the joke of all federal courts. They are 100% agenda and 0% constitution driven. A ruling by the ninth is a joke and has been for decades. Informative is not meaningless, it's constricting by nature. What do we mean by negotiated? See (i) and (ii). Is it perfect? Nope. Do we all know what it means the same? Yes we do, unless you want to lie and pretend you don't.


as usual (hehe), believe what you want - we'll know eventually... just not soon enough.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> No, you don't. there is NO PLAIN meaning of the word if the word is defined in the contract itself. I can say you can not accept flying monkeys and then define flying monkeys as CASH in the contract and that word now means cash. Period.


Sorry - but that's just _plain_ wrong.
The word 'different' means just that.
"_the pre-arranged Fare is to act as the default amount in the event you do not negotiate a different amount*.*" _is not ambiguous and is to be ineterpreted for its "plain meaning"*. *That's the rule. There is a period at the end of that sentence - where if Uber intended to limit 'different to 'lower', there would be a comma and the sentence would finsih with something like "... _that is lower than the default fare_."

And if Uber claims ambiguity, the rule of ambiguity comes into play, finding the ambiguity in favor of the 'lesser' party (the driver).

I'm not making this stuff up - these are the rules of law in the US. You can look them up with a google search for
"law" + "contract" + "plain meaning"
and
"law + "ambiguity" + "contract"


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> irrelevant to the discussion <shrug>


Not irrelevant as you are presenting this as an authority and it's a joke. The West coast lives in a nanny state world most of us would rather die to abolish than live under. So be it. State's rights. Please live and vote there and not here. You are free to choose a utopia of no responsibility or rights if that's what you want. Good for you.

Their courts are stacked with agenda driven political people who have no concept of individual rights. So be it. It doesn't mean anything they say is true or law, that's why they are the most overturned federal court in the nation, they couldn't care less about rights as defined in the constitution and that is why anything they say about Uber is meaningless.

Saying the ninth district court says this is like saying the Kardashians say this. No one cares. It's a joke.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Not irrelevant as you are presenting this as an authority and it's a joke.


Matter of opinion. I don't argue over opinions.

The Rule of Law:
1. If the facts are against you, argue the law.
2. If the law is against you, argue the facts.
3. If the facts and the law are against you, yell like hell.

When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your
side, argue the facts. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side,
make an ad hominem attack. (old adage)​


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

you guys are arguing wrong points. you are talking about negotiating a fare with the account holder, while i'm talking about denying the people rides who try to get a free ride. do we have a right to negotiate a fare with them and accept uber's rate?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uber strike said:


> you guys are arguing wrong points. you are talking about negotiating a fare with the account holder, while i'm talking about denying the people rides who try to get a free ride. do we have a right to negotiate a fare with them and accept uber's rate?


Yes - it's a different discussion - sorry for hijacking the topic! 
But it's not the 'wrong' point - 
it's a different, but related point about what control the Uber driver agreement explicitly gives to the IC driver.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uber strike said:


> you guys are arguing wrong points. you are talking about negotiating a fare with the account holder, while i'm talking about denying the people rides who try to get a free ride. do we have a right to negotiate a fare with them and accept uber's rate?


No, you don't. Read you contract, a contract freely and willingly agreed to by you, and decide if you agree or not. If not, I strongly urge you to not accept it as I will if I find it to be unprofitable. I DO NOT stand against the IC rejecting bad terms. Do it.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Sorry - but that's just _plain_ wrong.
> The word 'different' means just that.
> "_the pre-arranged Fare is to act as the default amount in the event you do not negotiate a different amount*.*" _is not ambiguous and is to be ineterpreted for its "plain meaning"*. *That's the rule. There is a period at the end of that sentence - where if Uber intended to limit 'different to 'lower', there would be a comma and the sentence would finsih with something like "... _that is lower than the default fare_."
> 
> ...


4.1 Fare Calculation and Your Payment. You are entitled to charge a fare for each instance of completed Transportation Services provided to a User that are obtained via the Uber Services ("Fare"), where such Fare is calculated based upon a base fare amount plus distance (as determined by Company using location-based services enabled through the Device) and/or time amounts, as detailed at www.uber.com/cities for the applicable Territory ("Fare Calculation"). *You acknowledge and agree that the Fare provided under the Fare Calculation is the only payment you will receive in connection with the provision of Transportation Services, and that neither the Fare nor the Fare Calculation includes any gratuity. *You are also entitled to charge User for any Tolls, taxes or fees incurred during the provision of Transportation Services, if applicable. You: (i) appoint Company as your limited payment collection agent solely for the purpose of accepting the Fare, applicable Tolls and, depending on the region and/or if requested by you, applicable taxes and fees from the User on your behalf via the payment processing functionality facilitated by the Uber Services; and (ii) agree that payment made by User to Company (or to an Affiliate of Company acting as an agent of Company) shall be considered the same as payment made directly by User to you. In addition, the parties acknowledge and agree that as between you and Company, the Fare is a recommended amount, and the primary purpose of the pre-arranged Fare is to act as the default amount in the event you do not negotiate a different amount. *You shall always have the right to: (i) charge a fare that is less than the pre-arranged Fare; or (ii) negotiate, at your request, a Fare that is lower than the prearranged Fare (each of (i) and (ii) herein, a "Negotiated Fare").* Company shall consider all such requests from you in good faith. Company agrees to remit, or cause to be remitted, to you on at least a weekly basis: (a) the Fare less the applicable Service Fee; (b) the Tolls; and (c) depending on the region, certain taxes and ancillary fees. If you have separately agreed that other amounts may be deducted from the Fare prior to remittance to you (e.g., vehicle financing payments, lease payments, mobile device usage charges, etc.), the order of any such deductions from the Fare shall be determined exclusively by Company (as between you and Company).

So, there you have the contractually defined term, _*"negotiated fare."*_ At this point, it makes no difference what you think it means, it's defined in writing and you agreed to that definition. You read it, and you agreed to it. Therefore, that is the exact meaning of that term as agreed.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> So, there you have the contractually defined term, _*"negotiated fare."*_ At this point, it makes no difference what you think it means, it's defined in writing and you agreed to that definition. You read it, and you agreed to it. Therefore, that us the exact meaning of that term as agreed.


You're not listening - and that's fine. If you want to believe that a contract can re-define the plain meaing of a word (which the Uber contract doesn't even bother to do), that's your perogative.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You're not listening - and that's fine. If you want to believe that a contract can re-define the plain meaing of a word (which the Uber contract doesn't even bother to do), that's your perogative.


A contract can and does define the meaning of a word. And this contract clearly does.



RamzFanz said:


> You shall always have the right to: (i) charge a fare that is less than the pre-arranged Fare; or (ii) negotiate, at your request, a Fare that is lower than the prearranged Fare (each of (i) and (ii) herein, a "Negotiated Fare").


There is no ambiguity. Ambiguity, by its very nature, means undefined. Here, the words _Negotiated Fare_, are very clearly and intentionally defined in the contract you signed. What does _Negotiated Fare_ mean? We don't have to guess, it's spelled out for us. Is it ambiguities? No, it's defined. What is defined? _State or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of_. End of story.

What is the plain meaning of donkey punch if we, you and I, define it as punching a donkey in a contract that describes it in detailed writing as such?

We can sign a contract that says for every helium balloon (helium balloon being a fart) you let off in a closed automobile that I witness a taco reacting to (taco being female), where you prevent window access, I will pay you $10.

And i will have to pay you for farting on women and locking the windows. Regardless of the common use of the terms.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> A contract can and does define the meaning of a word. And this contract clearly does.


No, it doesn't. NOWHERE in the contract does it say "Different" shall be defined as _________".
But that's besides the point. Plain menaing is a PRINCIPLE OF LAW.
And ambiguity has nothing to do with definitions - it has to do with conflicting implications or unspecified conditions and terms. 
And as you said:


> I agree. Ambiguity does leave the door open to interpretation.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> A contract can and does define the meaning of a word. And this contract clearly does.


No - it doesn't.
*Section [1] of the agreement is titled "DEFINITIONS".*
Show me where the word "different" is defined differently than its "plain meaning" - or at all.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> And ambiguity has nothing to do with definitions - it has to do with conflicting implications or unspecified conditions and terms.


And yet, there are no conflicting implications or unspecified conditions and terms. They made it perfectly clear in the contract. Shall I cover the terms again? Are you being obtuse?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No - it doesn't.
> *Section [1] of the agreement is titled "DEFINITIONS".*
> Show me where the word "different" is defined differently than its "plain meaning" - or at all.


Poorly replied and irrelevant. It defines it within its paragraph. Now you are being obtuse.

*The word is defined in the contract so that there is no ambiguity!*


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

I'm being obtuse because I don't agree with you?
Then it is what it is.
But I'm talking about things I know about. You're free to disagree with me.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I'm being obtuse because I don't agree with you?
> Then it is what it is.
> But I'm talking about things I know about. You're free to disagree with me.


If you and I sign a contract that defines the word "cow" as any animal with hooves, than any animal with hooves is a cow, legally, in regards to our contract. I couldn't claim your cat as a cow and you couldn't claim my goat as not being one. We agreed. There is a definition. We considered it and agreed and signed. It no longer has a generally accepted meaning, as we both agreed it has a contractually specified meaning.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

I will paraphrase what a wise person on here said; independent contractor means independent, that they can decide what contract they accept, but can't complain they have a contract they didn't accept and agree to.

Look, if you have an issue, don't do it. You aren't owed anything. Be a man, use it or make your own way. No great achievement was built on excuses. Uber doesn't pay enough to do next to nothing? Get a dream for life's sake. You only have one.


----------



## UTX1 (Dec 7, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> And i will have to pay you for farting on women and locking the windows.


Hi Guys, I don't mean to butt-in and please forgive me, but can I sign up to do this ?
I don't care if I get paid, I'm just looking for this exact thing. Do you have a link or referral code ?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You're not listening - and that's fine. If you want to believe that a contract can re-define the plain meaing of a word (which the Uber contract doesn't even bother to do), that's your perogative.


This has been a fascinating discussion btw.

I have a question. I'm wondering if you and/or RamzFanz have an opinion as to why Uber included ANY of the section on "negotiated" fares (whether meant by them to be lower exclusively or not). Why include that language at all?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> I will paraphrase what a wise person on here said; independent contractor means independent, that they can decide what contract they accept, but can't complain they have a contract they didn't accept and agree to.


Now THERE's an authority!


RamzFanz said:


> If you and I sign a contract that defines the word "cow" as any animal with hooves, than any animal with hooves is a cow, legally, in regards to our contract. I couldn't claim your cat as a cow and you couldn't claim my goat as not being one. We agreed. There is a definition. We considered it and agreed and signed. It no longer has a generally accepted meaning, as we both agreed it has a contractually specified meaning.


Last time:

1) There is nowhere in the Uber driver agreement where the word "DIFFERENT" is defined as anything other than its "plain meaning".
2) The Uber agreement says the driver and pax MAY negotiate a fare and that the Uber published fare is only used when a negotiated fare is not arranged between the driver and pax.
3) There is nowhere in the Uber agreement that says the driver and pax cannot negotiate a higher fare.​There is no ambiguity in any of those clauses - only UberSpeak that attempts to IMPLY that specific EXPLICIT statements should be taken differently. Implications are meaningless in contract law.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> This has been a fascinating discussion btw.
> 
> I have a question. I'm wondering if you and/or RamzFanz have an opinion as to why Uber included ANY of the section on "negotiated" fares (whether meant by them to be lower exclusively or not). Why include that language at all?


To reinforce their IC position. It's a gray area, non-defined, and allowing lower fare negotiations moves the line in their favor. I think it's BS by the way, I am just presenting it as it is.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Now THERE's an authority!
> 
> Last time:
> 
> ...


Please show me where the agreement allows you to negotiate for a higher fare. Please show me where you can trade an Uber fare for a goat. Thanks.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> This has been a fascinating discussion btw.


I agree. The Uber driver contract and UberSpeak has fascinated me since day 1 and is what has me 'on the edge of my seat' watching the court cases.


> I have a question. I'm wondering if you and/or RamzFanz have an opinion as to why Uber included ANY of the section on "negotiated" fares (whether meant by them to be lower exclusively or not). Why include that language at all?


It has to do with their claim that they are not a transportation company, and just a technology company that licenses 'lead' generating software to drivers who are independent contractors. See: https://uberpeople.net/threads/can-we-deny-rides-to-non-account-holders.60132/page-2#post-819244


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Please show me where the agreement allows you to negotiate for a higher fare. Please show me where you can trade an Uber fare for a goat. Thanks.


If the pax could pay with a goat through their app it would be perfectly acceptable - since all payment is required to be made through the app - and Uber is due their pound of flesh (or 20-30%).


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

I'm sorry. If you have ever been in contract negotiations or challenges, this is boring. A definition is a definition. A slice of cheese as defined as a 1/5 inch slice of sharp cheddar is just that no matter how much you want to say it is all cheeses at all thicknesses. It is defined. You agreed to the definition.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If the pax could pay with a goat through their app it would be perfectly acceptable - since all payment is required to be made through the app - and Uber is due their pound of flesh (or 20-30%).


So you can't accept a goat? Where is that stated in the contract?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Please show me where the agreement allows you to negotiate for a higher fare. .


"In addition, the parties acknowledge and agree that as between you and Company, the Fare is a recommended amount, and the primary purpose of the pre-arranged Fare is to act as the default amount in the event you do not negotiate a different amount."​
Is a negotiated fare that is "lower" than the pre-arranged fare "DIFFERENT" ?
Yes.
Is a negotiated fare that is "higher" than the pre-arranged fare "DIFFERENT" ?
Yes.

And THAT is the definition of 'different'.
Now - you show me where in the contract a higher negotiated fare is prohibited.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> I'm sorry. If you have ever been in contract negotiations or challenges, this is boring. A definition is a definition. A slice of cheese as defined as a 1/5 inch slice of sharp cheddar is just that no matter how much you want to say it is all cheeses at all thicknesses. It is defined. You agreed to the definition.


You're hanging your entire argument on the false claim that the word _DIFFERENT_ is defined in the agreement: Again - show me ANYTHING in the agreement that defines the word "different" as having anything other than its legal ("plain") meaning... or show me in the DEFINTITIONS section of the agreement that DIFFERENT is even defined. If you can't, then your argument is just an opinion.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You're hanging your entire argument on the false claim that the word _DIFFERENT_ is defined in the agreement: Again - show me ANYTHING in the agreement that defines the word "different" as having anything other than its legal ("plain") meaning... or show me in the DEFINTITIONS section of the agreement that DIFFERENT is even defined. If you can't, then your argument is just an opinion.


1.8 "Fare" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.1.

4.1 Fare Calculation and Your Payment. You are entitled to charge a fare for each instance of completed Transportation Services provided to a User that are obtained via the Uber Services ("Fare"), where such Fare is calculated based upon a base fare amount plus distance (as determined by Company using location-based services enabled through the Device) and/or time amounts, as detailed at www.uber.com/cities for the applicable Territory ("Fare Calculation"). You acknowledge and agree that the Fare provided under the Fare Calculation is the only payment you will receive in connection with the provision of Transportation Services, and that neither the Fare nor the Fare Calculation includes any gratuity. You are also entitled to charge User for any Tolls, taxes or fees incurred during the provision of Transportation Services, if applicable. You: (i) appoint Company as your limited payment collection agent solely for the purpose of accepting the Fare, applicable Tolls and, depending on the region and/or if requested by you, applicable taxes and fees from the User on your behalf via the payment processing functionality facilitated by the Uber Services; and (ii) agree that payment made by User to Company (or to an Affiliate of Company acting as an agent of Company) shall be considered the same as payment made directly by User to you. In addition, the parties acknowledge and agree that as between you and Company, the Fare is a recommended amount, and the primary purpose of the pre-arranged Fare is to act as the default amount in the event you do not negotiate a different amount. You shall always have the right to: (i) charge a fare that is less than the pre-arranged Fare; or (ii) negotiate, at your request, a Fare that is lower than the prearranged Fare (each of (i) and (ii) herein, a "Negotiated Fare"). Company shall consider all such requests from you in good faith. Company agrees to remit, or cause to be remitted, to you on at least a weekly basis: (a) the Fare less the applicable Service Fee; (b) the Tolls; and (c) depending on the region, certain taxes and ancillary fees. If you have separately agreed that other amounts may be deducted from the Fare prior to remittance to you (e.g., vehicle financing payments, lease payments, mobile device usage charges, etc.), the order of any such deductions from the Fare shall be determined exclusively by Company (as between you and Company).

Not that I am against fair compensation, just show me where you, the IC, are allowed to set the fare above the agreed to default.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Not that I am against fair compensation, just show me where you, the IC, are allowed to set the fare above the agreed to default.


I already have...
4.1 Not only PERMITS a different fare than the Uber default fare, it explicitly states the default fare is used ONLY when a negotiated fare that is "DIFFERENT" has not been arranged. 
One sentence - one explicit clause.

Now - you show me where - anywhere - it says that the "different" fare we negotiate, already explicitly permitted, may NOT be higher than the default fare.


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If the pax could pay with a goat through their app it would be perfectly acceptable - since all payment is required to be made through the app - and Uber is due their pound of flesh (or 20-30%).


I've been wondering. Let's suppose I negotiate a "different" fare with a rider before starting the ride. And I'm required to be paid this fare through the app. How do I go about doing that? Do I contact support after the ride and explain to them the terms that were negotiated so they can adjust the fare?


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I already have...
> 4.1 Not only PERMITS a different fare than the Uber default fare, it explicitly states the default fare is used ONLY when a negotiated fare that is "DIFFERENT" has not been arranged.
> One sentence - one explicit clause.
> 
> Now - you show me where - anywhere - it says that the "different" fare we negotiate, already explicitly permitted, may NOT be higher than the default fare.


I'm pretty sure the last version of the contract said "lower" fare, not "different" fare. I think this is a recent change.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Coachman said:


> I'm pretty sure the last version of the contract said "lower" fare, not "different" fare. I think this is a recent change.


Nope. I'm quoting the latest version.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Coachman said:


> I've been wondering. Let's suppose I negotiate a "different" fare with a rider before starting the ride. And I'm required to be paid this fare through the app. How do I go about doing that? Do I contact support after the ride and explain to them the terms that were negotiated so they can adjust the fare?


Uber CSR thehappytypist joined a different thread on this topic several months ago. She confirmed that there is no way to implement a negotiated fare - and that anyone trying to would likely be deactivated.
It's another example of Uber saying one thing in its contracts to bolster their legal argument that they are a tech company (as opposed to a transportation company) engaging ICs but implenting practices and policies that exert the control of an employer. 
UberSpeak - UberDoubleTalk. 
You can see that whole (on-topic) thread* here*:
https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber...to-be-used-if-a-fare-is-not-negotiated.37612/
Which is also the best place to continue this conversation...


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Nope. I'm quoting the latest version.


I meant the previous version.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Coachman said:


> I meant the previous version.


11/14 version had the same "different" wording:


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Tim In Cleveland said:


> It feels like drivers should originate their own TNC


They're trying... I know of one group in CLE that's trying to do a start-up locally.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

can anyone show me where in the contract it says that i have to give rides to people who want to jump in my car along with the rider who requested a ride?


----------



## Tequila Jake (Jan 28, 2016)

uber strike said:


> can anyone show me where in the contract it says that i have to give rides to people who want to jump in my car along with the rider who requested a ride?


I don't believe it does. In fact on the Rider side, the agreement says the rider can't let anyone else use the account.

I don't see how the topic or the tangents are relevant. No rider is going to negotiate a higher fare. If you try to enforce a per-passenger fee, you'll get rated 1.something very quickly and be deactivated.

However, most taxis do implement additional passenger fees when there are more than 2 pax.


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> 11/14 version had the same "different" wording:


What do you make of this part?

_You shall always have the right to: (i) charge a fare that is less than the pre-arranged Fare; or (ii) negotiate, at your request, a Fare that is lower than the pre-arranged Fare (each of (i) and (ii) herein, a "Negotiated Fare")._


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

uber strike said:


> can anyone show me where in the contract it says that i have to give rides to people who want to jump in my car along with the rider who requested a ride?


The contract doesn't tell you what kind of vehicle you need to have for Uberx, XL, Select or Black. You're still required to abide by Uber's guidelines.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uber strike said:


> can anyone show me where in the contract it says that i have to give rides to people who want to jump in my car along with the rider who requested a ride?


FWIW:
"You retain the sole right to determine when, where, and for how long you will utilize the Driver App or the Uber Services. You retain the option, via the Driver App, to attempt to accept or to decline or ignore a User's request for Transportation Services via the Uber Services, or to cancel an accepted request for Transportation Services via the Driver App, *subject to Company's then-current cancellation policies*." - 12/2015 Driver Agreement​


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Coachman said:


> What do you make of this part?
> 
> _You shall always have the right to: (i) charge a fare that is less than the pre-arranged Fare; or (ii) negotiate, at your request, a Fare that is lower than the pre-arranged Fare (each of (i) and (ii) herein, a "Negotiated Fare")._


It says, explicitly that I have the right to negotiate a lower fare. That's all it says. It doesn't say that I do not have the right to negotiate a higher fare - and that omission, while an attempt by Uber to IMPLY that a higher fare negotiation is not permitted, fails in the eyes of contract law because
a) you can't imply something in a contract - it must be stated explicitly and
b) the preceding definitive sentence specifically provides for the right to negotiate a 'different' fare.​
In other words, if Uber had wanted to explicitly prohibit the negotiation of a higher fare, the word 'different' in the preceeding sentence would read: 'lower':

"_...the primary purpose of the pre-arranged Fare is to act as the default amount in the event you do not negotiate a different amount_."
would have read:
"_...the primary purpose of the pre-arranged Fare is to act as the default amount in the event you do not negotiate a lower amount_.​
Uber surely would have preferred the word 'lower'...
but that would put them in the impossible position of having to explain to a court how that is not exerting control over their IC *who pays Uber for the right use the Uber app for 'lead generation', *as Uber claims.


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

They use the broad term "different" first, then it's qualified by the "lower" later.

RamzFanz is correct here. 

It's simple contract language and the use of "lower" does indeed preclude you from negotiating a higher fare.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Coachman said:


> They use the broad term "different" first, then it's qualified by the "lower" later.
> 
> RamzFanz is correct here.
> 
> It's simple contract language and the use of "lower" does indeed preclude you from negotiating a higher fare.


Nope... again - Uber is dancing around with an implication. The first sentence provides a right - the second expands it - it doesn't limit it.


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Nope... again - Uber is dancing around with an implication. The first sentence provides a right - the second expands it - it doesn't limit it.


"Lower" is a narrower definition than "different." Broad to narrow is not expansion.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Coachman said:


> "Lower" is a narrower definition than "different." Broad to narrow is not expansion.


While that's true, that's not what the contract says - the sentences are separate, not connected. They each end with a period - and neither one prohibits the negotiation of a higher fare - and neither one 'defines' the word "different". I really don't know how to say it more clearly than this:
The agreement explicitly allows for the negotiation of a fare.
The agreement does not explicitly prohibit the negotiation of a higher fare.


----------



## thehappytypist (Oct 9, 2014)

Coachman said:


> I've been wondering. Let's suppose I negotiate a "different" fare with a rider before starting the ride. And I'm required to be paid this fare through the app. How do I go about doing that? Do I contact support after the ride and explain to them the terms that were negotiated so they can adjust the fare?


If you write in asking to arbitrarily raise or lower the fare, odds are they'll look at you like you're crazy then let you know the fare is correct according to your city's rates. If you negotiate and try to gather payment outside the app, that will get you in deep trouble. As it stands, there is no way to negotiate payment rates. It's Uber's rates or nada.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I already have...
> 4.1 Not only PERMITS a different fare than the Uber default fare, it explicitly states the default fare is used ONLY when a negotiated fare that is "DIFFERENT" has not been arranged.
> One sentence - one explicit clause.
> 
> Now - you show me where - anywhere - it says that the "different" fare we negotiate, already explicitly permitted, may NOT be higher than the default fare.


Correct. You can use the default fare or the negotiated fare. Then it defines negotiated. How does it define negotiated?


----------



## shiftydrake (Dec 12, 2015)

I still want to know where I can sign up for the class that shows us how to "contractually fart on women then lick the doors and windows" where would the ambiguity defining terms be taught? And what is the cost of the class after Uber takes its cut and SFF. Safe farting fee...


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Nope... again - Uber is dancing around with an implication. The first sentence provides a right - the second expands it - it doesn't limit it.


You have a reasonable argument. I don't think it would hold up in court as negotiated is defined.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> FWIW:
> "You retain the sole right to determine when, where, and for how long you will utilize the Driver App or the Uber Services. You retain the option, via the Driver App, to attempt to accept or to decline or ignore a User's request for Transportation Services via the Uber Services, or to cancel an accepted request for Transportation Services via the Driver App, *subject to Company's then-current cancellation policies*." - 12/2015 Driver Agreement​


that's speaking of the users request. i'm speaking of people that did not request you


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Tequila Jake said:


> I don't believe it does. In fact on the Rider side, the agreement says the rider can't let anyone else use the account.
> 
> I don't see how the topic or the tangents are relevant. No rider is going to negotiate a higher fare. If you try to enforce a per-passenger fee, you'll get rated 1.something very quickly and be deactivated.
> 
> However, most taxis do implement additional passenger fees when there are more than 2 pax.


i'm not saying we should enforce a per passenger fee. i'm saying why are we giving free rides to people that did not request you via the app? uber should be the one to allow for the account holder to request more seats. $1 for every extra seat requested. that way we are not giving rides to people that are not paying a fare.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Correct. You can use the default fare or the negotiated fare. Then it defines negotiated. How does it define negotiated?


Again: In contract law, words have "plain meaning". That's why contracts have a section callaed "definitions" to clarify something that may require it. Since "NEGOTIATED" and "DIFFERENT" are not defined as meaning anything other than their "plain meaning", then they mean what they mean. BTW: "plain meaning" is not my term - it's a legal term.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> You have a reasonable argument. I don't think it would hold up in court as negotiated is defined.


And I respect your opinion - but disgaree, having been through state appeals court on a very similar issue of defintion and ambiguity. An attorney client of mine claimed my contract was ambiguous - and the local mickey mouse muni court agreed with him. I appealed and the state Court of Appeals schooled him (and the lower court) on "definitions" and "ambiguity", and overtunred the lower court, in my favor.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

thehappytypist said:


> If you write in asking to arbitrarily raise or lower the fare, odds are they'll look at you like you're crazy then let you know the fare is correct according to your city's rates. If you negotiate and try to gather payment outside the app, that will get you in deep trouble. As it stands, there is no way to negotiate payment rates. It's Uber's rates or nada.


How about if I negotiate a lower fare of $0 (+SRF) and a big cash tip?


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> While that's true, that's not what the contract says - the sentences are separate, not connected. They each end with a period - and neither one prohibits the negotiation of a higher fare - and neither one 'defines' the word "different". I really don't know how to say it more clearly than this:
> The agreement explicitly allows for tre negotiation of a fare.
> The agreement does not explicitly prohibit the negotiation of a higher fare.


So tell me. Why do you think in the second sentence they specify_ lower_, if what they in fact mean is _lower or higher_?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> But they then define _different_ as lower. Read (i) and (ii) as I remember. They do not specify that you can not trade ivory or rare earth magnets for rides. Are they then allowed? What if I say "show **** for a ride" in an area that has no law against it?
> 
> Ambiguity is a thing, an argument, but one that loses 99.99% of the time when both parties should understand the purpose of the language of the contract. ALL fares default to Uber's rate unless you negotiate a lower rate, so says the contract, and we all know it.


So if there's a surge going on a rider could try to negotiate a lower price?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Coachman said:


> So tell me. Why do you think in the second sentence they specify_ lower_, if what they in fact mean is _lower or higher_?


LEGAL POSITIONING.
They DON'T mean "lower or higher" - they can't restict either one if drivers are independent contractors. They include the BS about "lower" to IMPLY that a fare may only be negotiated "lower" (and to discourage any attempt to negotiate a higher fare). Everything after the '_right to negotiate a different fare_" is UBERSPEAK and not dispositive. At BEST it's ambiguous - and as previously discussed, ambiguity in a contract is found by the court in favor of the party that did not draft the agreement (if that party is in a weaker position).

Think about it:
*Why didn't Uber just say "use our published fares" and avoid the whole issue?*
Because that would put them in the impossible position of having to explain to a court how that is not exerting control over their ICs who pay Uber for the right use the Uber app for 'lead generation', as Uber claims. It would point towards Uber being a transportation services compnay - not a tech company. The lawyers wouldn't allow it.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Again: In contract law, words have "plain meaning". That's why contracts have a section callaed "definitions" to clarify something that may require it. Since "NEGOTIATED" and "DIFFERENT" are not defined as meaning anything other than their "plain meaning", then they mean what they mean. BTW: "plain meaning" is not my term - it's a legal term.





Demon said:


> So if there's a surge going on a rider could try to negotiate a lower price?


Contractually, yes, you can negotiate a lower fare.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Contractually, yes, you can negotiate a lower fare.


Interesting. Now I'm curious about how one would go about doing that on the app.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Demon said:


> Interesting. Now I'm curious about how one would go about doing that on the app.


READ this entire thread - including the link to the previous one on the topic.
IT CAN'T BE DONE (lower or higher). The contract gives us rights that we can not implement.
It's UBERSPEAK B.S.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> READ this entire thread - including the link to the previous one on the topic.
> IT CAN'T BE DONE (lower or higher). The contract gives us rights that we can not implement.
> It's UBERSPEAK B.S.


I know it's been mentioned, but this sounds like something riders would want to file suit over.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> ...there are no conflicting implications or unspecified conditions and terms. They made it perfectly clear in the contract.


You're kidding me, right? The Uber Agreement is a MASTERWORK of implications, ambuguities and conflicting clauses - which is why they are being sued in federal court.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Demon said:


> I know it's been mentioned, but this sounds like something riders would want to file suit over.


Riders can't read the APP... 
you think they're ever going to read their Uber Agreement?


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Uhhh, no. You are a contractor. You agreed to the definitions and pay schedule. Your choice is to not accept the definitions and pay schedule. Please stop trying to turn us into taxis.


You've been a taxi since the day you signed on as an Uber/Lyft driver. The only difference is you're driving an unbranded car and you have half-ass insurance.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

phillipzx3 said:


> You've been a taxi since the day you signed on as an Uber/Lyft driver. The only difference is you're driving an unbranded car and you have half-ass insurance.


Really? Then how come I never get 'dispatched' to a pick-up? And why can't I accept street hails? And how come I don't have a wood-bead seat pad?


----------



## Ray L (Oct 21, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> 4.1
> _In addition, the parties acknowledge and agree that as between you and Company, the Fare is a recommended amount, and the primary purpose of *the pre-arranged Fare is to act as the default amount in the event you do not negotiate a different amount.* You shall always have the right to: (i) charge a fare that is less than the pre-arranged Fare; or (ii) negotiate, at your request, a Fare that is lower than the prearranged Fare (each of (i) and (ii) herein, a "Negotiated Fare"). Company shall consider all such requests from you in good faith._​


So in reading this, and using what I know from studying law, The argument can be made that the right to negotiate a higher fare, although not specified in the contract, is implied since the right to negotiate a lower fare explicit in the contract itself, It would be IMPLIED that as an independent contractor, you have the right negotiate a higher fare. This would come from the contracts statement_ "... *the pre-arranged Fare is to act as the default amount in the event you do not negotiate a different amount."*_

_So the right to charge a lower amount then the prearranged fare is explicit in the contract.
So, too, the right to charge a higher fare would be IMPLIED in the contract_

Now mind you, I'm merely studying law and have a several more years before I can call myself a lawyer. It would be interesting to get an actual lawyers opinion on the actual contract.


----------



## Ray L (Oct 21, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Really? Then how come I never get 'dispatched' to a pick-up? And why can't I accept street hails? And how come I don't have a wood-bead seat pad?


Seriously??? You really going to ask it like this?? Does anyone want to answer this??

bueller?
bueller?
bueller?

1) Then how come I never get 'dispatched' to a pick-up?
ANSWER: you get pinged and you accept. Therefore you are dispatched to a pick up.

2) why can't I accept street hails?
ANSWER: You are an Independent Contractor for a company that does not allow for "street hails." This is akin to working for a cab company that does not have permission to pick up from an airport.


----------



## thehappytypist (Oct 9, 2014)

Ray L said:


> Seriously??? You really going to ask it like this?? Does anyone want to answer this??
> 
> bueller?
> bueller?
> ...


Uber drivers are considered for-hire/black car/livery/whatever service, not taxis. In most places it's illegal to pick up street hails unless they have the necessary taxi licensing and so all ride requests have to go through a dispatch. In this case, the app. They don't fulfill the licensing requirements for being a taxi. If they did, they could be uberTAXI/uberT and pick up hails while waiting for pings via the app, if they chose.


----------



## Ray L (Oct 21, 2015)

thehappytypist, thank you your answer is much more eloquent then mine but re-iterates it!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Ray L said:


> So in reading this, and using what I know from studying law, The argument can be made that the right to negotiate a higher fare, although not specified in the contract, is implied since the right to negotiate a lower fare explicit in the contract itself, It would be IMPLIED that as an independent contractor, you have the right negotiate a higher fare. This would come from the contracts statement_ "... *the pre-arranged Fare is to act as the default amount in the event you do not negotiate a different amount."*_
> 
> _So the right to charge a lower amount then the prearranged fare is explicit in the contract.
> So, too, the right to charge a higher fare would be IMPLIED in the contract_
> ...


You've got it right. Precisely right.
(There's actually another sentence in 4.1 that could easily be argued means that a driver does not necessarily have the right to negotiate a fare with the rider at all... but I'm not going to open that can of worms... yet.)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Ray L said:


> Seriously??? You really going to ask it like this?? Does anyone want to answer this??
> 
> bueller?
> bueller?
> ...


You did see the msg I was replying to, right?


----------



## Ray L (Oct 21, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You did see the msg I was replying to, right?


yes I did


----------



## Ray L (Oct 21, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You've got it right. Precisely right.
> (There's actually another sentence in 4.1 that could easily be argued means that a driver does not necessarily have the right to negotiate a fare with the rider at all... but I'm not going to open that can of worms... yet.)


Oh please do, and I'm not being a smart ass. If we can set out in clear layman terms what "WE" as drivers are allowed to do per contract as independent contractor's under this particular part then the best for ALL!! Besides, I love applying law to contracts. I do it when I can while at my "Real" job since I get bored quickly


----------



## thehappytypist (Oct 9, 2014)

Ray L said:


> thehappytypist, thank you your answer is much more eloquent then mine but re-iterates it!


I'm good at that. It's why Uber has kept me around.  It sure isn't for my looks!


----------



## Ray L (Oct 21, 2015)

thehappytypist said:


> I'm good at that. It's why Uber has kept me around.  It sure isn't for my looks!


LOL!!! I thought Uber kept you around because 1) slavery is illegal and 2) your cheaper then a slave anyways

I wouldn't mind doing the CSR bit for Uber. Better to take mileage on my ears and eyes then the car. LOL


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Ray L said:


> thehappytypist, thank you your answer is much more eloquent then mine but re-iterates it!


THT countered your argument by comparing us to non-taxi livery services. We aren't taxis.


----------



## Ray L (Oct 21, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> THT countered your argument by comparing us to non-taxi livery services. We aren't taxis.


Yes, he did. However Taxi's are a form of livery service. Not gonna battle the nuances and have a battle of the wits with a half-wit


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Ray L said:


> Yes, he did. However Taxi's are a form of livery service. Not gonna battle the nuances and have a battle of the wits with a half-wit


So we agree. Not taxis.

If Ubers were taxies, they would be covered by taxi regulations. They aren't. Back to school.


----------



## thomas1955 (Jan 2, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Theres a lot of truth in what you said, but it goes both ways. Uber cannot just put things in their contract that exert the control of an employer over an employee and then justify the control by saying - look, it's in the contract'. Uber can say whatever it wants in its driver contract, but that doesn't automatically make it enforceable - as Uber is now finding out in federal court.
> 
> The terms within a contract still must comply with law, be clear and unambiguois and in most cases, not be exploitative or manipulative (which can happen when there is a great disparity between the parties - like a multi-billion dollar multi-national corp authoring the document which must be signed by an individual before the individual can use the service the big company provides the individual who uses it to earn a living).


Is not this the reason that the federal judge in California has ruled the drivers contract or terms are unenforceable, that they (uber) miss classified the drives as IC, instead of employees.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

thomas1955 said:


> Is not this the reason that the federal judge in California has ruled the drivers contract or terms are unenforceable, that they (uber) miss classified the drives as IC, instead of employees.


CA is in its own agenda driven world where the constitution has no meaning. The ninth district federal court that ruled on the Uber case is the most overturned federal court in the US. I wouldn't put much faith in any ruling they make holding up in appeal.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

thomas1955 said:


> Is not this the reason that the federal judge in California has ruled the drivers contract or terms are unenforceable, that they (uber) miss classified the drives as IC, instead of employees.


No... the court has not ruled on the issue of misclassification. The certification of the class and tossing out of the binding arbitration clause was based on the poorly written, one-sided agreement drafted by a party with far superior position and power: that's why Judge Chen ruled it "unenforceable".


----------



## pharmboy (Aug 12, 2015)

uber strike said:


> why are we giving free rides to riders that did not request uber via the app? can anyone answer that question??? according to uber we are ic's, so why do we not have the right to deny someone who is not an account holder, is not paying a fare and is not requesting via the software? why are we allowing these free loaders in our cars? uber needs to allow for the account holder to request the allotted seats desired and pay $1 for each additional seat.


I routinely (every ride) accept and text that if "you are not the account holder, please cancel" 20% of the time they cancel. If the account holder is not on the ride, you are required to deny the ride - simple as that. Often, the rider does not reply, so I get paid anyway.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

pharmboy said:


> If the account holder is not on the ride, you are required to deny the ride - simple as that.


 I assume you mean that's your rule, right... becuase it isn't Uber's.

Some of my highest fares have been shuttling siblings and kids of account holders back to college dorms from their family home - on the parent's/sibling's account. And a few of my more fun trips have been 'john's' who send their hookers home using their account. I just don't have a problem with it. But I'm not sure that's what the OP was talking about... they seem to be complaining that one account holder can call for a ride for themself AND three other people in their party.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> The ninth district federal court that ruled on the Uber case is the most overturned federal court in the US.


<yaaawn> The conservative 6th court (Cincy) had an overturn arte of 81.6% - the liberal 9th (SF) had an overturn rate of 78.1%. All any of that points to is that any high profile case is going to make it to the Supreme Court, where the politics and leadership of that court will come into play.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uber strike said:


> so you're saying it's actually in the contract that we have to give rides to people that do not have an account with uber? and what do you mean taxi's? this will benefit all drivers. uber will either have to make each rider request a ride which means more demand or account holder has to pay $1 for each additional seat.


Yes, it is, have you not read the contract?

I have no problem with a charge per pax, I have a problem with people who agree to something and than complain. Don't do it. Just say no.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> <yaaawn> The conservative 6th court (Cincy) had an overturn arte of 81.6% - the liberal 9th (SF) had an overturn rate of 78.1%. All any of that points to is that any high profile case is going to make it to the Supreme Court, where the politics and leadership of that court will come into play.


Are you high? The sixth court was overruled for being too lenient.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2016)

You can deny 20% of your rides


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Are you high? The sixth court was overruled for being too lenient.


Are being beligerent?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> I have no problem with a charge per pax, I have a problem with people who agree to something and than complain. Don't do it. Just say no.


How about when you agreee to something and then one party continually changes the terms - unilaterlaly - and requires you to either accept the changes ro end the agreement? You still have a problem with people complaining then?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> How about when you agreee to something and then one party continually changes the terms - unilaterlaly - and requires you to either accept the changes ro end the agreement? You still have a problem with people complaining then?


You mean, like every IC agreement ever written?

Yes. Take it or leave it. It's a voluntary gig relationship, not a job, not a career, not a marriage.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> You mean, like every IC agreement ever written? Yes. Take it or leave it. It's a voluntary gig relationship, not a job, not a career, not a marriage.


I agree - but that doesn't mean there isn't liability on the part of the 'strongery' to the agreement for misleading or exploting the other party. I'm not saying there is... but we'll find out soon enough.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Yes, it is, have you not read the contract?
> 
> I have no problem with a charge per pax, I have a problem with people who agree to something and than complain. Don't do it. Just say no.


show me


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uber strike said:


> show me


You acknowledge and agree that, unless specifically consented to by a User, you may not transport or allow inside your Vehicle individuals other than a User and _any individuals authorized by such User_, during the performance of Transportation Services for such User


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> You acknowledge and agree that, unless specifically consented to by a User, you may not transport or allow inside your Vehicle individuals other than a User and _any individuals authorized by such User_, during the performance of Transportation Services for such User


this is stated in the negative. that we may NOT transport anyone that is not authorized by the user. in other words, don't have people in your car while you transport user. this is written for the sake of the user. uber is saying that we are allowed to transport people that the user authorizes. but the contract does not state wether we are obligated to transport those in the company of user.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uber strike said:


> this is stated in the negative. that we may NOT transport anyone that is not authorized by the user. in other words, don't have people in your car while you transport user. this is written for the sake of the user. uber is saying that we are allowed to transport people that the user authorizes. but the contract does not state wether we are obligated to transport those in the company of user.


_any individuals authorized by such User_


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uber strike said:


> this is stated in the negative. that we may NOT transport anyone that is not authorized by the user. in other words, don't have people in your car while you transport user. this is written for the sake of the user. uber is saying that we are allowed to transport people that the user authorizes. but the contract does not state wether we are obligated to transport those in the company of user.


You are not OBLIGATED to tansport anyone. Your car - your rules.
Go ahead and start refusing to take more than one person at a time (since you can only accept one ride request at a time - which would mean one 'person'). 
Do it. 
Tell the account holder her husband (child/friend/mother) can't come with her and they'll have to get her own account and call for their own ride. Do me a favor though: video the conversation and post it here.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You are not OBLIGATED to tansport anyone. Your car - your rules.
> Go ahead and start refusing to take more than one person at a time (since you can only accept one ride request at a time - which would mean one 'person').
> Do it.
> Tell the account holder her husband (child/friend/mother) can't come with her and they'll have to get her own account and call for their own ride. Do me a favor though: video the conversation and post it here.


actually, you are obligated to transport the account holder once you accept the trip and start the trip. and you are right, our car our rules. that's exactly what i am trying to convey. uber cannot force you to give free rides to people that did not request a ride. and if the ride hailers don't like it they should request via the app. does not matter if they are pleased or not, they are not my customer.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uber strike said:


> actually, you are obligated to transport the account holder once you accept the trip and start the trip.


Sorry - the pax may not like it, the TNC may not like it, but the car is my property, and the choice to allow anyone in it (or allow them to remain in it) is entirely mine. The TNC's want us to be Independent Contractors - and that's what we are. I have no contract with the pax that requires me to transport them. I am under zero obligation to transport anyone I do not want to - or to continue transporting them should I determine they are not 'transport worthy'. I have kicked a few people out of my car - and refused others entry once I arrived at a pick-up.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Sorry - the pax may not like it, the TNC may not like it, but the car is my property, and the choice to allow anyone in it (or allow them to remian it) is entirely mine. The TNC's want us to be Independent Contractors - and that's what we are. I have no contract with the pax that requires me to transport them. I am under zero obligation to transport anyone I do not want to - or to continue transporting them should I determine they are not 'transport worthy'. I have kicked a few people out of my car.


the accepted trip means that you are transporting the account holder. it cannot be anyone. you are obligated to transport the account holder on an accepted trip. never does the contract say that you are obligated to transport anyone not paying a fare.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uber strike said:


> the accepted trip means that you are transporting the account holder. it cannot be anyone. you are obligated to transport the account holder on an accepted trip. never does the contract say that you are obligated to transport anyone not paying a fare.


Show me ANYWHERE it says that. 
The 'accepted trip', as you put it, means that you agree to pick up whoever the account holder authorizes and transport them to where the account holder or their authorized rider indicates.

You can't just make stuff up. However, you can choose to not provide a ride to anyone you don't want to.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Show me ANYWHERE it says that.
> The 'accepted trip', as you put it, means that you agree to pick up whoever the account holder authorizes and transport them to where the account holder or their authorized rider indicates.
> 
> You can't just make stuff up. However, you can choose to not provide a ride to anyone you don't want to.


you're obviously unfamiliar with uber talk. the contract does not state that we have to transport whoever the account holder authorizes, but that we may transport whomever user authorizes. this is written to make sure you do not have friends or family in your car while transporting user. if you don't understand uber talk e mail uber and ask if we are obligated to transport non account holders. then come talk to me! uber will never tell you you have to transport people not requesting uber via the app. they indeed cannot. uber will have another law suit on their hands. uber insists that we are ic's. we make the determination if we want to transport users friend or husband, etc. uber cannot force us to give free rides to people not paying a fare.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uber strike said:


> you're obviously unfamiliar with uber talk. the contract does not state that we have to transport whoever the account holder authorizes, but that we may transport whomever user authorizes. this is written to make sure you do not have friends or family in your car while transporting user. if you don't understand uber talk e mail uber and ask if we are obligated to transport non account holders. then come talk to me! uber will never tell you you have to transport people not requesting uber via the app. they indeed cannot. uber will have another law suit on their hands. uber insists that we are ic's. we make the determination if we want to transport users friend or husband, etc. uber cannot force us to give free rides to people not paying a fare.


You are so lost in your premise that you can't seem to see that the question you posed is moot from the start. 
You are not obligated to transport anyone, incuding the account holder.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You are so lost in your premise that you can't seem to see that the question you posed is moot from the start.
> You are not obligated to transport anyone, incuding the account holder.


i don't think you understand. no one is questioning if you are obligated to transport the account holder or not. but once you decide to give the account holder a ride and start the trip, why are we giving the ride hailers (people with the account holder) free rides? that's the question?


----------



## Tucson Uber Partner (Jun 9, 2015)

uber strike said:


> why are we giving the ride hailers (people with the account holder) free rides?


Lets settle this once and for all... you are NOT giving them a free ride. The cost of the ride is the same for up to FOUR pax. Look at it another way. The cost of the ride is ALWAYS for FOUR pax -- the account holder may choose, at their discretion, to not take anyone with them even though they are paying for FOUR pax.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> You are so lost in your premise that you can't seem to see that the question you posed is moot from the start.
> You are not obligated to transport anyone, incuding the account holder.


right, but once you make the decision to transport the account holder why are we giving free rides to non account holders (meaning people that are with the account holder)?


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Tucson Uber Partner said:


> Lets settle this once and for all... you are NOT giving them a free ride. The cost of the ride is the same for up to FOUR pax. Look at it another way. The cost of the ride is ALWAYS for FOUR pax -- the account holder may choose, at their discretion, to not take anyone with them even though they are paying for FOUR pax.


you are absolutely wrong. that is an assumption. nowhere does it say that in the contract.


----------

