petrol survey

ONLY if they have advertised it at a different price and then try to
charge you the wrong price at the checkout. That is, the price they
attempt to charge is different to the price you think you're
accepting. That's more about false advertising and Trade Practises act
as much as anything.

For a start it's a different contract to that which you create in a
supermarket - the advertised price is an "invitation to treat" (1)- an
invitation to offer to buy it at that price. In a supermarket you
offer to buy it at that price at the checkout, at a petrol station you
create the contract when you pick up the nozzle. Big difference.

Absolutely everything, thats what. The price of the juice is on the
pump, if you don't like the price, don't pick up the nozzle, go
somewhere else.

ROTFLMAO ! So you call the cops and say "they just tried to charge me
the price that's advertised on the pump". Yeah that's going to get you
a long way.

<shakes head> Fraud and theft hey ? Do you really want to go there ?

The servo can put on the bowser any price they want. If the $8 an hr
pimply teenager suffers a dyslexic moment and turns 143 into 413 cents
a litre and you're silly enough to fill up then you owe them $4 a
litre - suck it up for being thick (unless they had a different price
on the large board out the front then you might have an argument)

JL
1 Refer boots chemist etc

 

You don't have a leg to stand on unless the big sign out the front
said a different price to that on the bowser (then you could nail them
on TPA S.52 misleading conduct).


JL

 

At which point the cops would come and arrest you, and charge you for
failing to pay for the fuel (assuming that "refusing to accept my
money" means "I'll give him what I think I should have paid", not the
price on the bowser) and when you got to court you'd lose.

JL

 

I fail to see how they (Rudd and Swan) managed to increase the price of
Singapore Sweet Crude.

I think by suggesting that the current fuel prices are the fault of Krudd
and Swan, suggesting that Johnny had it all totally under control.

Theo

 

Never said they did , but the application of tax and profit plus the
blind continuation of price parity is their responsibility

Your suggestion entirely , johhny had a sytem that worked for his
style of govco , labor has a differing style with less direction hence
less predictable results ( and it seems less control over certain effects)

 

Bullshit. Assuming 'the correct price' is the price marked on the item
on the shelf, then the 'correct price' of the petrol is the price marked
on the pump.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

Surely the price on the shelf relates to the price on the sign, and the
price at the pump relates to the price at the checkout?

Theo

 

[...] (Good responses to silly comments)

That neatly sums it up. If the servo values customer relations, it
might decide to offer the appropriate discount. It doesn't have to
though, and if you want to argue otherwise, get a good lawyer.

 

JL wrote:

Are you always this big a dickhead? Or does it take practice?

If they are displaying an incorrect price, know they are charging an
incorrect price, refuse to change it, and insist on taking more than
they can rightfully claim, then that pretty much amounts to theft by
deception.

On the other hand, they can do what they are legally obliged to do, and
fix up their mistake with a polite apology, and there's no problem at all.

 

Bullshit. The correct price was not marked on the item, and the retailer
(despite knowing this) insisted on forcing a customer to pay a far
higher price, rather than honouring their obligation to correct the
mistake at the point of sale. If you want to talk about contract law,
you might like to actually start giving some consideration to points
such as this, as I'm pretty sure that honouring contractual terms and
rectifying errors are pretty fundamental aspects of it.

 

Unfortuately for you, you're wrong yet again. The cops have no grounds
for arresting or charging you for disputing the amount owed when the
retailer has quite clearly fucked up big time and then tried to
dishonestly force an honest consumer to pay for the retailer's mistake.
Any one trying to take such a matter to court would only be a bigger
idiot than you.

 

Regardless of whether you like it or not, the price on the pump is what
you pay. The 'correct price' is the price on the pump, not some other
nominal number you fantasise about.

I have no idea why you think I would want to talk about contract law.
Is this some other fantasy you have?

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

So Nev, when you go in to Coles and buy a loaf of bread that is priced
at $3.89 but then scans at $3.20, do you insist on paying the extra
$0.79 because that's what the shelf price was? No, you pay the price it
should have been. Or if it was marked at $3.20 but scans at $3.89 do you
just pay it without complaint? No, you point out the discrepancy in the
prices, and they fix it up on the spot. So now, if you can, please tell
me why petrol should be exempt from consumer protection laws?

As for contract law, ask JL why he's been spouting off a load of
bullshit about it then. Can't see the relevance myself, since consumer
law has far greater relevance in this context than any other.

 

The two situations are fundamentally similar but mechanically
different. The price on the sign is the price you agree to pay when
you transfer the goods to the tank of your vehicle. You may elect to
go elsewhere, or not to buy any fuel at all, but if you pour the fuel
into your tank, that's the execution of the Contract. You pay the
signed amount unless the owner agrees to another amount. To not pay
constitutes breach of contract, and the owner is entitled to seek
recompense at law. Of course, you might change your mind and hand the
fuel back, but the fuel would need to be of the same quality and
quantity as that transferred to you in the first place - a bit of a
tall ask really.
The supermarket allows you to take the goods to the checkout for final
pricing and payment. Ownership is not transferred until payment is
made for the goods that pass through the checkout. Similarly if you do
not want to pay the amount shown at the shelf, or another mutually
agreed amount at the checkout, you are able to hand the goods back
undamaged. If you don't do that you are in breach of contract.

 

Simplistic , fact is if the offer is accepted then you pay he price BUT
if the price is in error or over a reasonable fee you can renegotiate to
the common available in the area OR report the rhorting .
That's why you can usually negotiate the price of eletrical and
whitegoods so easily

 

I have no idea how your analogy on supermarket goods scanning at a
different price to the sticker price on the shelf has anything to do
with the instance in discussion.
The price on the pump is the shelf price. It's right there on the pump
in full view when you're standing there pumping the petrol. Moike saw
the price before he started pumping and agreed to pay that price.
You're whole argument is based on the fantasy there was another
undisclosed price which you think was the real shelf price while the
displayed shelf price was somehow not the real price.

If you have comments to make about JL's post, I don't know why you
addressed them to me.. twice now. Why would I want to ask him anything?
You're the one with the issue with what he said.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

JL has never been any sort of "big dickhead"

So what planet do you come from?
Here on Earth, there are no "incorrect" fuel prices. They can display
any price they like, and if you choose to purchase, you pay that price.
If they had had a sign out front advertising a price different from
what the pump (and till) said, there might be a case for a claim of
misrepresentation.

In the instance at hand, the servo droid inadvertently set his price
higher than he should have. In taking fuel from the pump, I was
accepting his offer.

He didn't break any rules. There is no legal price.

I was a bit pissed off that it had been so long since I had bought
petrol I didn't realise how high the price was.

Moike

 

I don't really care how much you might happen to love him, he's still a
dickhead as far as I'm concerned.

well, if you're really that happy to just bend over and get screwed by
all and sundry, and then smile about it as well, I suppose that is your
right. The price of freedom, I guess.

 

That's the critical point the bush lawyers are deliberately ignoring in
their rush to prove our superior they are to the rest of us.

They seem to be forgetting that even an otherwise rock-solid contract
carries little weight if it can be demonstrated that one or more aspects
were significantly flawed such as by being based on terms that the other
party could not reasonably have known about.

In this case, the servo knew that the price was wrong, but displayed a
different price anyway. The customer, not knowing the price was wrong,
entered into the 'contract' in good faith, believing the price to be
correct. So when the customer was made aware that the price was in fact
wrong, they have every legal right to demand that the contract be
renegotiated and have the correct terms applied - in this instance, the
price as it SHOULD have been, not the price as it was displayed.

 

Nev, I know JL is complete dickhead, but what's your excuse for missing
the point with such unerring consistency?

It's precisely the same thing as we're discussing. In this case, the
shelf price was not the correct price, and regardless of what the sign
said, the final sale price should have been adjusted at the point of
sale. Surely that isn't such a hard point to grasp?