Uber Portier Services Agreement
As part of its business model, Uber, which does not own vehicles, concedes a „driver app“ to drivers who download the app and thus open an account with Uber to become drivers. In return, consumers request and accept drivers` journeys via the driver app, through which they pay and evaluate the driver`s performance. In return for making the app available, Uber charges a fee to the driver. A similar business model is used for food delivery to restaurants through the UberEATS app, which connects customers, restaurants and drivers who provide delivery services for restaurants. Heller argued that the arbitration clause was not applicable. The AA, not ICAO, takes into account the agreement reached between the parties, Mr. Heller, arguing that the civil courts had jurisdiction to examine the validity of the arbitration clause, since the interaction between that clause and the ASE is only a matter of law. Similarly, in the present case, the issue of scruple could be resolved by a superficial examination of the evidence. Accordingly, the courts were not required to refer the question of jurisdiction to the arbitrator.
According to Hellers, the Court of Appeal correctly held that the arbitration clause constituted an unlawful separation from the ESA, given that the clause was intended to prevent workers from enforcing minimum employment standards through the procedures provided for by law. The Court of Appeal`s conclusion that the clause is ruthless was correct, also given the grossly unfair requirement that drivers in the Netherlands must initiate arbitration proceedings, the pre-trial cost of which ($14,500) is disproportionate to the value of potential claims. In addition, it was reasonable to conclude that Uber knew that the agreement was unilateral, which allowed it to exploit its superior position vis-à-vis drivers. In addition, the arbitration clause, measured by the surrounding context at the time of the conclusion of the contract between the parties, constituted a manifestly reckless agreement in which drivers were unable to enforce any of their rights under the broader agreement: in accordance with the Ontario International Arbitration Act, 2017 (ICAA) and the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991 (AA), when a matter is decided under an arbitration agreement. if a party initiates legal proceedings in the matter, the court must initiate proceedings in favour of arbitration proceedings. However, in certain circumstances, a court may refuse the stay, even if the arbitration agreement is not valid. . . .